Subsidizing Solar Power

  • John Wakeman of SUR Energy says government and utility incentives have lowered the costs of a solar installation for consumers.(Photo courtesy of Mark Brush)

Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:

Transcript

Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:

John Wakeman was laid off from his factory job eight years ago. So, for him it was, “well… Now what?” He’d always been interested in solar panels and wind turbines. So he decided to go into business helping homeowners put these things up. It’s been eight years, business was slow at first, but he says these days, business for solar panels is picking up.

“There are a lot of people that have always just dreamed of it. You know, they thought it was really cool, they looked into it in the ‘70s. In the 70’s it cost, you know, ten times as much for the same energy. The costs have really come down.”

But it’s still really expensive for a lot of people. Wakeman says a typical solar job costs around sixteen thousand dollars these days.

But now – you can get help from the government.

There’s a federal tax credit that will pay for 30% of the cost of new solar panels on your house. So you spend sixteen grand – you get $4,800 off your next tax bill. And on top of that, there are a bunch of state and utility operated programs that will help pay for the up-front costs.

In fact, more than half the states in the country are forcing utilities to make more renewable power.

So more utilities are paying people to install things like solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps.

In many places, it costs less to install these things than it ever has.

Wakeman says these incentives have been good for his business.

“I can actually build a business somewhat on that. I can hire some people and get them trained. You know we can go out and sell some systems.”

But some say these subsidies are not a good idea:

“The sunlight may be free, but solar energy is extremely expensive.”

Robert Bryce analyzes the energy business for the Manhattan Institute. It’s a conservative think tank. Bryce says solar power is enjoying big subsidies from the government right now, but it’s not translating into a lot of power going onto the grid:

“Solar energy received 97 times as much in subsidies per megawatt hour produced as natural gas fired electricity; even though the gas-fired electric sector produced 900 times as much electricity as solar. So how much subsidy are we going to have to give them to make them competitive. And I think the answer is going to be… It’s going to have to be a whole, whole lot.”

Bryce agrees – there are some big environmental costs to traditional fossil fuel sources. Costs that are not always paid for. But in the end – he says renewable energy sources like solar just can’t compete with traditional fossil fuels.

But others say the subsidies for renewable power are boosting an industry that is trying to get a start.

Rhone Resch is the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. He says the subsidies renewables are getting today just make the game fair:

“We’re starting to get the same kinds of support from the federal government that the fossil industry has enjoyed for the last 75 to 100 years. And when you do that, the cost of wind comes down, the cost of solar comes down, the cost of geothermal becomes more cost competitive.”

If you look at the numbers, traditional power sources have always gotten more money from the government. In 2007, the federal government gave out 6.7 billion dollars in subsidies to support electricity production. Most of it went to coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Today, renewable energy sources, like solar, are getting a little more help. And supporters hope that help doesn’t disappear – like it has in the past – when the political winds change.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Tapping Offshore Wind

  • Offshore wind farms have the potential to create jobs in struggling states like Michigan, but uncertainty in the permitting process continues to slow projects down.(Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

It’s been nine years since developers first proposed a wind farm off Cape Cod. You can now find offshore wind proposals in just about any state with a coastline. But these are still just proposals. Dustin Dwyer has a look at what needs to change before the U.S. can tap into its offshore wind potential:

Transcript

It’s been nine years since developers first proposed a wind farm off Cape Cod. You can now find offshore wind proposals in just about any state with a coastline. But these are still just proposals. Dustin Dwyer has a look at what needs to change before the U.S. can tap into its offshore wind potential.

One of the newest plans for offshore wind in the U.S. is in Michigan, a state that’s desperate for the kind of jobs that an offshore wind project could create.

But local landowners don’t want to have to look at the turbines – it’s the same problem Cape Wind confronted nine years ago. And the process for getting offshore wind projects approved remains murky.

Steve Warner is CEO of Scandia Wind, which is proposing the Michigan project. He says the response from state government so far has been confusing.

“In the absence of understanding the process and what it entails, people want to hesitate and we understand that.”

There is an effort underway in Michigan to clarify the permitting process for offshore wind. But as that effort drags in many states and at the federal level, developers are left waiting.

For The Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

Home Weatherization Gets Snagged

  • It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was one way to help jump start the economy. (photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy)

The Recovery Act called for a multi-billion dollar home weatherization program. It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was the ultimate “shovel ready” project to help jump start the economy. But as Mark Brush reports, so far, it just hasn’t worked out:

Transcript

The Recovery Act called for a multi-billion dollar home weatherization program. It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was the ultimate “shovel ready” project to help jump start the economy. But as Mark Brush reports, so far, it just hasn’t worked out:

The Department of Energy’s Inspector General found the data alarming.

Of the ten states receiving the most money for home weatherization – eight of them weren’t even at two percent of their goal.

One reason for the hold-up is bureaucracy. There’s a law that says if you get federal money – you have to pay workers a “prevailing wage” or a fair wage. And there was confusion over how much to pay people.

Don Skaggs is with Ohio’s Office of Community Services. He says most states waited until the issue was resolved – but Ohio didn’t wait:

“So we decided to go ahead and do production. And then once we understood what the requirements were, we would go back and retroactively adjust those wages for those staff, which is what we did.”

So Ohio’s on track – but most states are not. The Department of Energy said it’s working on these problems – and expects things to ramp up soon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Billions for Better Rail Service

  • High speed trains may be sprouting up across the country in light of the recent initiative. (Photo courtesy of Black Leon)

The U.S. government is spending billions of dollars to improve the nation’s railroads and passenger train service. But those billions will be just the beginning of the cost of updating rail service. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The U.S. government is spending billions of dollars to improve the nation’s railroads and passenger train service. But those billions will be just the beginning of the cost of updating rail service. Lester Graham reports:

New investments in higher-speed rail are making passenger rail supporters almost giddy. Eight billion dollars from the Recovery Act is seed money for new high-speed routes in California and Florida and improvements for existing routes in other regions.

At a recent National Press Club panel discussion, Amtrak’s Joseph McHugh said Amtrak is not getting any of that money… but it’ll improve the freight railroads on which Amtrak operates its trains.

McHugh: And that means higher speeds, reduced trip time, additional frequencies, improved facilities, and a higher level of reliability for our services all around the country.

Beyond that first eight-billion dollars, the Department of Transportation’s so-called TIGER grants mean a few billion dollars more for further upgrades railroads and depots that tie into commuter rail, light rail and other mass transit.

Supporters of rail are expecting big things from the investments.

But others see spending billions upon billions of dollars on passenger rail as wasted money. They don’t see the utopia of transportation in better, faster trains. Many online comments from readers of stories on higher-speed rail indicate they don’t want the government to subsidize rail projects. They see it as stealing from necessary highway and bridge improvements. Others are more political, saying the government is trying to imitate the high-speed rail of Europe when –they feel– Americans are more independent and prefer cars.

So the debate sometimes devolves into — car versus train. Or individuality versus socialism.

Susan Zielinksi heads up the Universtiy of Michigan’s SMART transit project. She says that’s the wrong way to view it.

Zielinski:I think we get ourselves stuck in the polarization and this isn’t about getting rid of cars.

She says better passenger rail and tying it in to better mass transit gives more people more choices. She notes not everyone has access to a reliable car.

Environmentalists add… the train is just more environmentally friendly. Howard Lerner is with the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

Lerner: On a per-passenger-mile basis, rail is about three times as efficient as travel by car in terms of fuel efficiency, six times as efficient as travel by air. So, there are pretty substantial pollution reduction benefits, both in terms of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants when it comes to traveling by rail.

But the investment of billions of dollars during the Obama administration is generally considered just the down payment on the cost of bringing U.S. passenger rail service into the 21st century. Just a couple of years ago the Bush administration tried to zero-out the Amtrak budget. A future president might do the same.

Susan Zielinksi at the University of Michigan believes the improvements in rail service we’ll see in just the next several years will prove this investment is worth it.

Zielinski: Congress is not going to be able to go backwards on this. This is going to usher in a whole new set of industry opportunities, of economic development in communities, of new opportunities for jobs.

But even people who like the idea of improved passenger rail service say if this doesn’t result in the trains arriving on time… doesn’t fix the problem of having no transportation once they arrive at the depot… doesn’t spiff up the drab Amtrak train cars… and keep train ticket prices reasonable… it’ll be hard not to keep piling into the car or cramming themselves into an airline seat.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Guns in National Parks

  • Guns are no longer prohibited in America's national parks. (Photo courtesy of Fenners)

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

The new policy means a reversal for the nation’s 392 National Park sites. Firearms have been prohibited in the parks.

But now….

Whatever law you were under in that state outside of the park now applies in the national park unit.

That’s National Park Service spokesman David Barna. He says that means that parks everywhere except Illinois and Washington DC will allow firearms.

But different states have different laws about the specifics – for example, whether you can conceal your weapon or not.

Barna says that could get complicated.

Appalachian Trail passes over 14 states. Yellowstone National Park is in 3 states. And the burden is going to be on the public to know those various laws.

Barna says the Park Service will help gun owners out with website updates and postings in park facilities.

But he says they can’t put up notices every time a park trail crosses a state line.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Plug Pulled on Nuke Plant

  • Vermont Yankee Corp. is one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the country. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Yankee Corp.)

One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants is setting its operating life shorter than expected. Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants might have its operating life cut shorter than expected.

Shawn Allee reports:

The federal government has been leaning toward letting the Vermont Yankee reactor renew its license in 2012 for another 20 years.

But Vermont’s state legislature says has voted to shut it down – no matter what the federal government says.

One reason is the plant’s been leaking radioactive water.

State senator Peter Shumlin says plant owners said that couldn’t happen.

SHUMLIN: What’s worse? A company that won’t tell you the truth or a company that’s operating their aging nuclear power plant next to the Connecticut River and doesn’t know they have pipes with radioactive water running through them that are leaking and they don’t know because they didn’t know the pipes existed … neither is very comforting.

The federal government says the leaks have not been a health threat.

The closure of Vermont Yankee would be a setback for the nuclear power industry.

It’s trying to extend the operating life of reactors across the country, since its far cheaper to run old reactors than to build new ones.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Global Warming Law Under Attack

  • Opponents say the law should not be implemented until California’s unemployment rate is much lower. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

There’s a new ballot initiative
underway that is trying to repeal
the nation’s leading global warming
law. The law seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
close to a third by 2020. Mark
Brush reports the opponents of
the law say it will cost jobs:

Transcript

There’s a new ballot initiative
underway that is trying to repeal
the nation’s leading global warming
law. The law seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
close to a third by 2020. Mark
Brush reports the opponents of
the law say it will cost jobs:

Conservatives and some Republican lawmakers are behind the petition effort in California. If they’re successful, they’ll suspend the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act. They say the law should not be implemented until California’s unemployment rate is much lower.

Supporters of the law say it’s the one thing that’s actually driving innovation and creating jobs in the state. Tom Soto is with Craton Equity Partners which invests in clean tech businesses. He says the backers of this ballot initiative are hanging onto the past.

“I think it is a shameless last ditch effort of the oil companies and industry who are clinging by their bloodied fingernails onto something that simply is no longer sustainable.”

Opponents of California’s global warming law are hoping to capitalize on growing skepticism about climate change science.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

The State of the Nation’s Lakes

  • The EPA found that 44% of the nation's lakes ranked fair or poor. (Photo by Randolph Femmer, courtesy of the National Biological Information Infrastructure)

The Environmental Protection Agency
has released its first comprehensive
survey of the nation’s lakes. Samara Freemark tells us what
the study turned up:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency
has released its first comprehensive
survey of the nation’s lakes. Samara Freemark tells us what
the study turned up:

More than half the nation’s lakes are in good condition. That’s according to a nationwide survey just released by the EPA. But the agency found that 44% of lakes ranked only fair or poor.

The survey identified two major problems facing lakes. First, many of them are surrounded by development. And that can mean dirt and polluted water running off into the lakes.

And second, many lakes contained high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which can lead to harmful algae blooms.

Susan Holdsworth is with the EPA. She says those findings were concerning.

“These stressors are both widespread and pose a significant threat to the condition of our nation’s lakes.”

Holdsworth says the EPA will use the data to assess how well government programs are doing at protecting lakes. The results will also help set future EPA priorities.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Part 2: Choices in the Cafeteria

  • The Shaker Heights School District in Ohio now serves smoothies, salads, even sushi. But students say they still prefer ice cream and french fries. (Photo by Julie Grant)

When we hear about kids and obesity,
a lot of people point the finger at
schools. Most kids today eat about
half their meals at school, and many
cafeterias are filled with junk food.
In the second half of our school lunch
series, Julie Grant reports that some
districts are trying to improve what
they serve – but there are a lot of
challenges:

Transcript

When we hear about kids and obesity,
a lot of people point the finger at
schools. Most kids today eat about
half their meals at school, and many
cafeterias are filled with junk food.
In the second half of our school lunch
series, Julie Grant reports that some
districts are trying to improve what
they serve – but there are a lot of
challenges:

(sound of a school cafeteria)

The food available in school in Shaker Heights, Ohio looked a lot different a few years ago. They used to sell lots of pop and French fries. Today, we’re standing at what’s called the Nutri-Bar. Students can buy salads, sandwiches, even sushi.

“Fresh, healthy and portable. That’s the motto of the Nutri-Bar. This has been a big hit with our students.”

Peggy Caldwell is spokesperson for the school district. She says a group of parents started worrying about national obesity and diabetes rates among children and pushed for the change.

“They want us to provide healthy choices. They want us to provide nutritious meals. They understand that students learn best if they are healthy and well fed.”

Parents worked with the district to improve the food available in the schools.

(school bell)

“And, here they come.”

It’s lunchtime. Students are packing into the cafeteria.

(sound of a blender)

A few girls order fruit smoothies at the snack bar.

(sound of students in line)

But the line is much longer for the hot meals. Cheeseburgers and pizza are always on the menu. Today’s special: chicken strips and mashed potatoes. That might sound like a lot of fat and salt, but Caldwell says it’s actually pretty healthy.

“The chicken strips are baked now, they’re not fried. The potatoes are baked or, if they’re mashed potatoes, they’re made with low fat milk. There’s less sodium. They may look the same, but they’re better for you than they used to be.”

Caldwell says they’re starting to make pizza with whole wheat crust and the pasta is all whole grain.

But serving healthier food has cost the district. They had to buy ovens so they could bake. They have to pay more for labor to chop vegetables and make smoothies. And the food, itself, costs more. Fruits and vegetables come at a higher price than those processed foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt.

Especially in schools. Schools can actually get 15% to 20% of their food for free through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Janey Thornton is undersecretary for food and nutrition at the USDA. She says when farmers have too much of, say, blueberries or green beans or ham, the USDA buys those commodities for schools.

“If we have an abundance of blueberries – in order to stabilize the market, to keep prices near where they should be, then those products are purchased by the federal government.”

Then the government offers those blueberries for free to schools. That sounds might sound like a win-win – helping farmers and schools. But lots of times those berries are processed into unhealthy things – like glazed blueberry snack pies – before they get to schools.

Peggy Caldwell says the government food presents a challenge. Schools can’t afford to turn down free food. But it’s often high in salt and fat, and at odds with her district’s efforts to provide healthy lunches.

“It’s not always consistent with the nutritional guidelines. It can be a challenge for a staff to use in a way and in quantities that really meet the health requirements we’re trying to meet for our students.”

Some critics have gone so far as to call the schools garbage disposals for un-sellable farm commodities. Janey Thornton with the USDA scoffs at that suggestion.

“I would love to have that garbage disposal in my home, in my freezer if that were the case.”

Thornton worked 25 years in school nutrition at a local district before coming to the USDA. She says the ground meat has gotten leaner, the canned fruit is now healthfully packed in a very light syrup.

(sound of a cafeteria)

For those that disagree, debating the federal government might seem like a huge undertaking. But there maybe even tougher tasks for schools encouraging healthful eating, like Shaker Heights.

Grant: “What are you having for lunch?”

Student: “Ice cream. Chocolate. Soft serve. It’s really good.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

The ‘Tres Amigas’ Project

  • The project would send power - like wind or solar - across three electricity networks. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Wind and solar power farms are sprouting
up, but they have reliability problems.
Wind doesn’t always blow, and sun doesn’t
always shine. To keep the lights on,
utilities want to grab power from any
solar and wind farm that is working.
Shawn Allee reports one transmission
project could help out:

Transcript

Wind and solar power farms are sprouting
up, but they have reliability problems.
Wind doesn’t always blow, and sun doesn’t
always shine. To keep the lights on,
utilities want to grab power from any
solar and wind farm that is working.
Shawn Allee reports one transmission
project could help out:

It’s not easy to send California’s solar power eastward. Same goes for sending Texan wind power westward.

A proposed transmission project called Tres Amigas hopes to change that.

It would let utilities send power across three electricity networks.

Michael Giberson researches utility economics at Texas Tech University. He says the Tres Amigas project could go in just the right spot.

“The area where it’s locating in Eastern New Mexico close to the Texas borderr, is an area where there’s great renewable energy potential and this is gonna make it much easier for the grid to accomodate that.”

The Tres Amigas power project would need federal approval. It would also require Texas to link its grid with its neighbors’.

That’s something the Lone Star state might not do.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links