DOCSLIB.ORG

The Hidden Economic Benefits of Distributed Generation (And Other Distributed Resources)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Hidden Economic Benefits of Distributed Generation (And Other Distributed Resources) Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Distributed Generation (and Other Distributed Resources) Amory B. Lovins CEO (Research), Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org [also Chairman, Hypercar Inc., www.hypercar.com] Australian EcoGeneration Conference (by PictureTel), Sydney, 13 March 2002 Copyright © 2002 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved. “Hypercar” is a trademark of RMI. Noncommercial hard-copy distribution by AEA is permitted for its and participants’ internal use. The research reported here was supported by The Shell Sustainable Energy Initiative, The Energy Foundation, and The Pew Charitable Trusts, but the authors are solely responsible for its content. © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Main findings Approximately 130 distinct distributed benefits can collectively increase the economic value of distributed resources by typically an order of magnitude (~101) – Details are very site- and technology-specific – But increased value too small to tilt traditional commodity-cost-based investment decisions toward distributed/green resources seems rare – Some benefits aren’t reported or linked before – Capturing many benefits depends on policy – Described here for generation resources, but also applies to storage and efficiency © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Objectives • Comprehensively synthesize and rigour- ously analyze distributed benefits, quantifying each wherever possible • Write the standard practitioners’ primer • Create a pedagogy across disciplinary boundaries, especially between electric- al engineering and financial economics • Embed in historical context • Offer policy recommendations • Make widely available for faster learning • Preview highlights today; solicit your suggestions for improvement © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Seismic shift • 19/20th Centuries model: power plants have higher cost and outage rate than the grid, so both supply and demand must be aggregated through the grid • 21st Century model: power plants have lower cost and reliability than the grid, so affordable and reliable supply must originate at or near the customer © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Meanwhile, unnoticed... Central power plants, at least in the United States, stopped getting… – More efficient in the 1960s – Cheaper in the 1970s – Bigger in the 1980s – Bought in the 1990s Similar trends are now emerging in most of the world. © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Scale surprises: on the margin, distribu- ted resources are taking over the market • The disappointing cost, heat rate, risk, and reliability of large thermal stations were leading their orders to collapse… • …even before the “potential difference” between nuclear and combined-cycle costs stimulated restructuring that began to delaminate utilities… • …creating new market entrants, un- bundled prices, and increasing oppor- tunities for competition at all scales… • and launching the scale revolution © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Big units’ costs disappointed Capital-cost eco- nomies of unit (using Handy-Whitman scale steam plant cost deflator, so cost disappeared, then increases could come only from increased reversed; they intensity of input factors) were probably illusory anyhow above at most a few hundred MW Even the thermal efficiency of U.S. steam plants satu- rated around 1960 —supercritical units hit the wall Hirsh 1989 Hirsh © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Big steam units aged ungracefully Fossil-fueled steam units: median Equivalent Availability Factor vs. age, by size range, 1982–93 95 1 MW 90 100 MW 200 MW 85 300 MW 600 MW 1,000 MW EAF (%) 80 75 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 unit ageage (years) (years) RMI analysis by André Lehmann,Unit usingage (years) Markovian smoothing of 29 July 1994 NERC raw data on all 1,347– 1,527 U.S. steam units in the years shown; raw data kindly provided by Resource Insight, Inc. © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org A 5-year rolling average reveals that U.S. fossil- fueled steam unit orders have been fading since the 1970s; their ordering rate, all 1/5 the former size, is now back to Victorian levels Maximum and average sizes of new generating units (fossil-fueled steam, all utilities, 5-year rolling average) by year of entry into service 1,400 200 1,200 1,000 150 800 100 600 400 50 200 0 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Maximum new size Average new size Number of new units © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org At first glance, it appears that the most recently ordered steam units have only retreated from the largest size range... 70% Previous trends toward ever-larger units reverse in currently planned units, with a marked step back from the most gigantic 60% ones. Is that all? 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Planne 1,000 d 1996- 1986- 2005 1995 1976- 10,000 1985 1966- 1975 1956- 100,000 1965 1946- 1,000,000 1955 1936- unit summer capacity (kWe); 1945 logarithmic scale; each label refers t the top -of-range of thesmallest of the three capacity categories Capacity distribution by date in-service (all U.S. utility-owned steam units) © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org But make a few front bars transparent, and look what’s coming up in the garden ...new steam-unit size is shrinking 10 The striped columns show an emerging 70% The 1.01–2.15-GWe class new intermediate-size-class category crashes; the 0.46–1.0-GWe class below 1.0 GWe, of which the largest capacity share is in 46–100-MWe units; even the previously robust 216–460- 60% MWe class's share is declining. Next stop the 1940s' size distribution? 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Planned 1,000 1996- 1986- 2005 1995 1976- 10,000 1985 1966- 1975 1956- 100,000 1965 1946- 1,000,000 1955 1936- unit summer capacity (kWe); 1945 logarithmic scale; each label refers t the top -of-range of thesmallest of the three capacity categories Capacity distribution by date in-service (all U.S. utility-owned steam units) © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Since 1983, nonutility generation has come back, now making 27% of U.S. electricity The fall and rise of nonutility generation 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Nonutility Investor-owned utilities Government and cooperatives To many, though, it’s invisible: many California authorities stated in summer 2000 that the state had added no capacity in the 1990s, but the actual additions, 4.5 GW, exceeded total nuclear capacity—it was just distributed and nonutility! © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org What’s the right size for the job? Most customers want kW, not GW Average electricity consumption per U.S. household Three-fourths of U.S. 60 households have 50 75% of the households2.4 don't need more than 1.52.4 average loads not 40 average kW of power 30 exceeding 2.4 kW 20 2.4 av. kW (EIA statistical 1.5 av. kW 10 sample, 7/93) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 millions of U.S. households at consumption level Average electricity consumption Three-fourths of U.S. per U.S. commercial customer 10000000 74% of the commercial custom- commercial units don't 100000 need more than 10 ers have average average kW of power 1000 loads not exceeding 10 av. kW 10 10 kW (EIA statistical 0.1 sample, 1992, loga- 0.001 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 rithmic vertical axis) thousands of U.S. commercial customers at consumption level © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Codifying distributed benefits • Four kinds: financial economics, electrical engineering, miscellaneous, externalities • Many pioneered by utilities, mainly in ’90s • As commercial value was discovered and demonstrated while competition loomed, most public-benefit research was halted; most interesting data became proprietary • While respecting confidences, RMI has sought to compile enough data to form the understanding required for public benefit © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Where does the order-of-magnitude typical value increase come from? • Financial-economics benefits: often nearing ~10 renewables, ~3–5 others • Electrical-engineering benefits: normal- ly ~2–3, far more if the distribution grid is congested or if premium power relia- bility/quality is required • Miscellaneous benefits: often around 2 , more with thermal integration • Externalities: indeterminate but may be important; not quantified here © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org 101: Minimizing regret (financial ecs.) • Short lead times & small modules cut risk – Financial, forecasting, & obsolescence risks – Overshoot /“lumpiness” in generation & grid Tom Hoff’s analytic Smaller, faster grid-support investments are worth more solution shows it’s 3,000 worth paying ~2.7 2,500 10 kW (upper) and 1 MW (lower) more per kW for a 10- 2,000 kW instant resource 10 MW 1,500 than for a 50-MW 2-y cost ($/kW) 1,000 50 MW distributed resource breakeven capital 500– + (with +0 or +5 MW demand/y, 25 MW spare grid capacity, 10%/y 0 discount rate, $500/kW 5-y-lead- –012345Or time grid expansion; based on lead time (years) decision or option theory approach) © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Financial-Economics Benefits (cont’d) – Benefit of modularity benefit of short lead time...especially strong when they’re correlated – Portable resources are redeployable • Benefits’ expected value rises and risk falls – Rapid learning, mass-production economies • Modularity captures falling costs, e.g. of PVs – “Load-growth insurance” of cogen/efficiency – 10 lower working capital can cut interest rate – Genuinely diversified supply portfolios • U.S. coal and gas prices are ~84% correlated • Include higher-cost, constant-price resources in portfolio for the same reason that Treasuries are included in an optimized financial portfolio © 2001 Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org Financial-economics benefits (cont’d) – Constant-price resources vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How to Retire Early Making Accelerated Coal Phaseout Feasible and Just “Possible Quote on the Report/Research Topic Here
    M OUN KY T C A I O N R I N E STIT U T How To Retire Early Making Accelerated Coal Phaseout Feasible and Just “Possible quote on the report/research topic here. Et que prorpos et, consedi dolupta spicid quam nus qui audipit verumet usdandi genima venimagni sandiat iatur? Quia volorror ad quossimet ulpa seque ab il min coraeribus aut repudis esto magnientus, sum nos ea erum es samuscimus mo quodissimus qui ute et landis aut enisque volor alitate essed molupidunt voluptat qui coressin nulparumqui rerem re pa et haria nonsedit dere voluptam vene es eum volorep eribusanim rem est, as explitas sinis essus con con praeperit quunt.” —Name of the person being quoted Authors & Acknowledgments Authors Paul Bodnar, Matthew Gray (Carbon Tracker Initiative), Tamara Grbusic, Steve Herz (Sierra Club), Amanda Lonsdale (Magnitude Global Finance), Sam Mardell, Caroline Ott, Sriya Sundaresan (Carbon Tracker Initiative), Uday Varadarajan (Rocky Mountain Institute and Stanford Sustainable Finance Initiative) * Authors listed alphabetically. All authors from Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted. Contacts Caroline Ott, [email protected] Matthew Gray, [email protected] Steve Herz, [email protected] Suggested Citation Paul Bodnar, Matthew Gray, Tamara Grbusic, Steve Herz, Amanda Lonsdale, Sam Mardell, Caroline Ott, Sriya Sundaresan, and Uday Varadarajan, How to Retire Early: Making Accelerated Coal Phaseout Feasible and Just, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2020, https://rmi.org/insight/how-to-retire-early. Images courtesy of iStock unless otherwise noted. Acknowledgments This report has benefited from the input of over 60 individuals from over 30 institutions. For a complete list of individuals who informed this report, please see the acknowledgments on pages 54 and 55.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019–2020
    annual report 2019–2020 Energy Solutions for the Decisive Decade M OUN KY T C A I O N R IN S T E Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020TIT U1 04 Letter from Our CEO 08 Introducing RMI’s New Global Programs 10 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Contents. 2 Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020 Cover image courtesy of Unsplash/Cassie Matias 14 54 Amory Lovins: Making the Board of Trustees Future a Reality 22 62 Think, Do, Scale Thank You, Donors! 50 104 Financials Our Locations Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020 3 4 Rocky Mountain Institute Annual Report 2019/2020 Letter from Our CEO There is no doubt that humanity has been dealt a difficult hand in 2020. A global pandemic and resulting economic instability have sown tremendous uncertainty for now and for the future. Record- breaking natural disasters—hurricanes, floods, and wildfires—have devastated communities resulting in deep personal suffering. Meanwhile, we have entered the decisive decade for our Earth’s climate—with just ten years to halve global emissions to meet the goals set by the Paris Agreement before we cause irreparable damage to our planet and all life it supports. In spite of these immense challenges, when I reflect on this past year I am inspired by the resilience and hope we’ve experienced at Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). This is evidenced through impact made possible by the enduring support of our donors and tenacious partnership of other NGOs, companies, cities, states, and countries working together to drive a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future.
    [Show full text]
  • Rmisolutions F a L L 2 0 0 2 SIP
    Rocky Mountain Institute/volume xviii #3/Fall 2002 RRMMIISSoooolllluuuuttttiioioioonnnnssss newsletter S m all is Pro f it a ble Today’s electricity problems—and costs— are in the grid B y A mory B. Lovins For the first century of electrical power, as Profitable: and Jeremy Heiman generating plants became larger and more The Hidden centralized, delivery of power became Economic lectricity has been so successful more and more dependent on the grid. Benefits of providing the energy needs of citi- Driven by demand that escalated as costs Making Electrical Resources the Right Ezens and industry that many of us declined, the size of power plants grew Size, written by RMI cofounder and CEO can’t imagine life without it. Flip a switch, during the first years of the 20th century. Amory Lovins and six coauthors. Small Is a light comes on. Spin a dial, a fan begins The complexity and size of the grid Profitable builds on the assertion central to whirling. Crank a knob and a pump starts increased at the same time. But by the Lovins’s groundbreaking 1977 work, Soft pushing. Electricity has become a pervasive early 1990s, it was Energy Paths, arguing that energy efficien- and essential force in modern life because clear that utilities cy and cheaper electricity from small, it is a versatile, convenient, controllable, were no longer put- renewable sources of energy will gradually clean-to-use, and generally reliable form of ting many large replace the output of large, centralized fos- energy. Although only about one-sixth of power plants in their sil fuel-powered generating stations and the total energy delivered in the United shopping carts.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicles As Distributed Energy Resources
    ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES BY GARRETT FITZGERALD, CHRIS NELDER, AND JAMES NEWCOMB O Y M UN ARBON K T C C A I O N R I W N E A M STIT U T R R O O AUTHORS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AUTHORS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Garrett Fitzgerald, Chris Nelder, and James Newcomb The authors thank the following individuals and e-Lab * Authors listed alphabetically. All authors are from member organizations for offering their insights and Rocky Mountain Institute unless otherwise noted. perspectives on this work, which does not necessarily reflect their views. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS Jim Lazar, Regulatory Assistance Project Rich Sedano, Regulatory Assistance Project Riley Allen, Regulatory Assistance Project Sarah Keay-Bright, Regulatory Assistance Project Jim Avery, San Diego Gas & Electric CONTACTS Greg Haddow, San Diego Gas & Electric Chris Nelder ([email protected]) San Diego Gas & Electric Load Analysis Group James Newcomb ([email protected]) Noel Crisostomo, California Public Utilities Commission Jonathan Walker, Rocky Mountain Institute SUGGESTED CITATION Chris Nelder, James Newcomb, and Garrett Fitzgerald, The authors also thank the following additional Electric Vehicles as Distributed Energy Resources individuals and organizations for offering their insights (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2016), and perspectives on this work: http://www.rmi.org/pdf_evs_as_DERs. Joel R. Pointon, JRP Charge Joyce McLaren, National Renewable Energy Laboratory DISCLAIMER e-Lab is a joint collaboration, convened by RMI, with participationfrom stakeholders across the electricity Editorial Director: Cindie Baker industry. e-Lab is not a consensus organization, and Editor: David Labrador the views expressed in this document are not intended Art Director: Romy Purshouse to represent those of any individual e-Lab member or Images courtesy of iStock unless otherwise noted.
    [Show full text]
  • How Big Is the Energy Efficiency Resource?
    Environmental Research Letters EDITORIAL • OPEN ACCESS How big is the energy efficiency resource? To cite this article: Amory B Lovins 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 090401 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 147.202.68.137 on 06/05/2019 at 16:06 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 090401 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad965 EDITORIAL How big is the energy efficiency resource? OPEN ACCESS Amory B Lovins PUBLISHED Rocky Mountain Institute, 22830 Two Rivers Road, Basalt CO 81621, United States of America 18 September 2018 E-mail: [email protected] Original content from this Keywords: increasing returns, efficiency, climate, integrative design, whole systems, expanding returns work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Abstract Any further distribution of Most economic theorists assume that energy efficiency—the biggest global provider of energy services—is a this work must maintain attribution to the limited and dwindling resource whose price- and policy-driven adoption will inevitably deplete its potential author(s) and the title of and raise its cost. Influenced by that theoretical construct, most traditional analysts and deployers of energy the work, journal citation and DOI. efficiency see and exploit only a modest fraction of the worthwhile efficiency resource, saving less and paying more than they should. Yet empirically, modern energy efficiency is, and shows every sign of durably remaining, an expanding-quantity, declining-cost resource. Its adoption is constrained by major but correctable market failures and increasingly motivated by positive externalities. Most importantly, in both newbuild and retrofit applications, its quantity is severalfold larger and its cost lower than most in the energy and climate communities realize.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Efficiency, Taxonomic Overview
    Copyright (c) 2004 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved. Licensed to and first published in: A.B. Lovins, "Energy Efficiency, Taxonomic Overview," Encyclopedia of Energy 2:383-401 (2004), 6 vols., San Diego and Oxford (UK): Elsevier, www.elsevier.com/locate/encycofenergy (hard copy) and www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/012176480X (downloadable). This article is RMI Publication #E04-02 and can be downloaded free from: www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#E04-02 Please note the following updates to the published article: p. 396, col. 2, full para. 2 ("Perhaps..."): The vehicle efficiency stated is from a simulation of on-road performance, obtained by multiplying each vector in the standard EPA test cycles by 1.3. The equivalent EPA adjusted efficiency (the kind used for official efficiency ratings and shown on the window stickers of market vehicles) is 2.06 L-equivalent per 100 km, 48.5 km/L-equivalent, or 114 miles per U.S. gallon-equivalent. Resimulation in 2004 with a gasoline hybrid-electric powertrain as efficient as that of the 2004 Toyota Prius, and conservatively adjusted to all-wheel-drive operation like the fuel-cell version, yields simulated EPA adjusted efficiency of 3.56 L/100 km, 28.1 km/L, or 66 miles per U.S. gallon. p. 397, col. 2, line 5: for 8.6 read 6. p. 401, col. 2, lines 3-6: the Lovins et al. 2002 reference Small Is Profitable can be obtained at least cost via www.smallisprofitable.org. p. 401, col. 2, lines 7-10: the Lovins et al. 2004 reference should read: Lovins, A.B., Datta, E.K., Bustnes, O.-E., Koomey, J.G., & Glasgow, N.
    [Show full text]
  • Higherground
    HIGHERGROUND 2006 -2007 Annual Report HIGHERGROUND From the Chairman This year, an exciting and welcome storm broke over our heads: showers of recognition, flashes and rumbles of acceptance, and a flood of global demand for our help in taking solutions to scale. RMI spent the year racing for higher ground—expanding our capabilities and effectiveness to step up to what the world now requires of us. Our steadfast vision of a secure, just, prosperous, and life-sustaining world (“Imagine a world…”) strikes an ever-deeper chord with diverse people and organizations everywhere. RMI’s roadmap for this half-century of change is continuing to unfold in a series of gratifying shifts now snapping into focus. For example, to much industry mirth in 1991, I suggested that a four-seat carbon-fiber car could weigh just 400 kg and get over 100 mpg. This October, Toyota showed such a car; the world’s top maker of carbon fiber announced a factory to mass-produce ultralight auto parts; and our Fiberforge spinoff’s new manufacturing process entered production at an aerospace plant. This summer, two trans- formational RMI car projects with the auto industry exceeded expectations. With leadership from Boeing in airplanes, Wal-Mart in heavy trucks, and the Pentagon in military energy efficiency, RMI’s 2004 Winning the Oil Endgame journey off oil is underway, and we’re focused intently on driving it faster, especially in automaking. In 1976, I foresaw a dramatic market shift toward the decentralized production of electricity. Today, a sixth of the world’s electricity (slightly more than comes from nuclear energy) and a third of the world’s new electricity is so produced.
    [Show full text]
  • TOWARDS a CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY Post-COVID-19 Opportunities for India’S Energy and Mobility Sectors
    TOWARDS A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY Post-COVID-19 Opportunities for India’s Energy and Mobility Sectors BY NITI AAYOG AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE M OUN KY T C A I O N R I N E STIT U T Towards a Clean Energy Economy AUTHORS NITI Aayog Amitabh Kant Anil Srivastava Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) Clay Stranger Ryan Laemel RMI India Akshima Ghate Jagabanta Ningthoujam Ashpreet Sethi SUGGESTED CITATION NITI Aayog and Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). Towards a Clean Energy Economy: Post-COVID-19 Opportunities for India’s Energy and Mobility Sectors, 2020. Available at RMI: https://rmi.org/insight/india-stimulus-strategy-recommendations-towards-a-clean-energy-economy/ Available at RMI India: www.rmi-india.org/insight/india-stimulus-strategy-recommendations-towards-a-clean-energy-economy/ Images courtesy of iStock/Shutterstock unless otherwise noted. The views and opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the positions of the institutions or the government. While every effort has been made to verify the data and information contained in this report, any mistakes or omissions are attributed solely to the contributors and not to the organizations they represent. Green Stimulus and Recovery Series Towards a Clean Energy Economy Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................4 Highlights .........................................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • 21St Century Water Systems: Scenarios, Visions, and Drivers
    21st Century Water Systems: Scenarios, Visions, and Drivers Richard Pinkham Research Scholar Rocky Mountain Institute Snowmass, Colorado Urban water systems are in a period of stress and uncertainty, and will experience rapid and significant changes in coming decades. Water supply, stormwater management, and wastewater treatment systems face threats and opportunities created by developments within the water management sector, and by forces from outside the water sector, beyond the control of water system managers. Scenario building and visioning exercises are valuable tools for understanding change and planning strategies for the future. The first is a “what if?” technique that portrays different ways forces beyond ones control could play out. The second typically portrays desired outcomes as goals for planning and action. Both must assess a variety of forces, or “drivers,” that will shape the future. This paper presents the results of a water systems scenario building project conducted by Rocky Mountain Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1995; outlines a “soft path” vision for sustainable urban water resources infrastructure; and discusses selected drivers that could force or enable the development of a new urban water management paradigm. Water 2010: Four Scenarios for 21st Century Water Systems Scenario planning is a formal process increasingly used by corporate and government strategists. It offers a creative, flexible way of preparing for an uncertain future (Schwartz 1991; van der Heijden 1996). The technique throws out the notion of prediction—a risky business at best—and instead focuses on identifying the most critical dimensions of uncertainty. By assuming various outcomes for those uncertainties, scenario planners can then envision several different but equally plausible futures, which help reveal the interlinking trends and factors that will shape whatever future finally unfolds.
    [Show full text]
  • RMINL Fall01.Bs10.11.01
    RockyRocky MountainMountain Institute/volumeInstitute/volume xviixvii #3/Fall#3/Fall 20012001 Brit tle Ti m es, R M I’s Resp onse B y A mory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins wreaked havoc. A week later, revenge. Amidst talk of technology and ret- their violence was threatening ribution, we need understanding and trans- to hijack much of U.S. policy. formation. Their attack so outrages • America’s distinctive strengths flow from common decency as to tempt her diversity, freedom, and tolerance—pre- reactions that Americans cisely the qualities that are most under would abhor in normal attack, most precious, and most vital not to times—bombing civilians impair. Terrorists succeed if they drive us to ruled by despots considered deny our values and diminish our free- complicit, eroding civil liber- doms. ties, blaming anyone who • The attackers hope to provoke a looks or thinks differently, jihad/crusade confrontation between rushing to military and energy America and Islam, and more broadly to choices that would be inflame tensions between the powerful and repented at leisure. But if the dispossessed. We defeat this goal if we policy simply reacts to the ter- continued on next page rorists, they win. America and the world need rather to address root causes: to reas- sume global leadership in helping all people to fulfill CONTENTS their legitimate aspirations for OTHER VOICES: ERIC RASMUSSEN ..p a ge 4 a safe and decent life. BATTLING WASTE INTHE MILITARY . p a ge 6 The terrorist attack elicited T h e eve n ts o f 11 S e p t e m b er m ig h t h ave p er- m a n e n tly a lt ere d o u r u n d erst a n din g o f wh at is wide agreement on some FUEL CELLS ...........p a ge 10 re q uire d t o m a in t a in a f re e a n d o p e n socie ty.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleaner Energy, Greener Profits
    Cleaner Energy, Greener Profits: Fuel Cells as Cost-Effective Distributed Energy Resources Contents: Executive Summary . 2 By Joel N. Swisher, Ph.D., P.E. Introduction . 4 Rocky Mountain Institute Fuel cells: A small, clean,reliable This publication and its underlying research were funded power source . 6 by the grants from the W. Alton Jones Foundation, What is different Pew Charitable Trusts, and Energy Foundation. about today’s electricity problems? The author, a civil and mechanical engineer with a . 8 Stanford doctorate in civil and environmental engineering, is an authority on distributed generation Changing Trends in and leads RMI’s Energy and Resource Services team. the Electricity Industry . 9 Small is profitable: the economic benefits of distributed generation . 13 Early markets and commercialization paths . 32 Cleaner Energy, Greener Profits Executive Summary The electric power industry is undergoing centrally focused “generation-transmission- major changes that are reshaping the traditional distribution” companies into a more heteroge- roles of utilities, creating opportunities for new neous structure. The new industry will be made technologies, and redefining the scope and up of companies fulfilling various traditional character of government regulation. These roles, including independent power producers, changes are arising out of the interaction of electric service providers, energy brokers and several driving forces: marketers, transmission operators, and local distribution companies. • An emerging technological shift could offer distributed generation sources economic One of the most promising and exciting distrib- benefits unavailable to traditional, central- uted generation (DG) options is fuel cell ized sources of electricity. technology, which converts fuel to electricity at • Regulatory and public policy support is high efficiency, without combustion, and with growing for competition over traditional negligible emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Amory B. Lovins Disruptive Energy Futures
    O B Disruptive energy futures Y M UN AR ON K T C C A I O N R Amory B. Lovins I W N E A M Cofounder and Chief Scientist STIT U T R R O O Shell PPT, Detroit, 27 April 2017 © 2017 Rocky Mountain Institute Thank you for the honor of sketching some context about the energy transformation we’re all creating together. * Henry Ford and Thomas Edison “I can’t wait to see what happens when our industries merge.” 188.5610 from https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/pic/2004/July.asp Ford’s auto industry, Edison’s electricity industry, and Rockefeller’s oil industry changed the world. If Ford and Edison took a very long nap on one of their car-camping trips, woke up, and saw their businesses today, they’d recognize almost everything except the electronics. Yet today their industries face vast disruptions, as 21st-Century technology and speed collide head-on with 20th- and even 19th-Century institutions, rules, and cultures. Let me sketch how the first two of these three great industries are coming together to eat the third. As we might imagine * Ford mischievously muttering to Edison, let’s see what happens when electricity displaces gasoline, then those electric cars add flexibility and cheap distributed storage that help the grid accept variable solar and windpower— replacing giant power stations and their fossil fuels. * Heresy Happens U.S. energy intensity, 1975–2016p 1.25 Government and Industry Forecasts, ~1975 1 Actual 0.75 0.5 Lovins, Foreign Affairs, Fall 1976 Per Dollar of Real GDP 0.25 Index of U.S.
    [Show full text]