Wind Energy Weekly #693, Vol 15, 15 April 1996
*********************************************************************
The following is the electronic edition of WIND ENERGY WEEKLY,
Vol. 15, #693, 15 April 1996, published by the American Wind
Energy Association. The full text of the WEEKLY is available
in hardcopy form for $595/year and is recommended for those with
a serious commercial interest in wind (the electronic edition
contains only excerpts). A monthly hardcopy publication, the
WINDLETTER, more suitable for those interested in residential
wind systems is included with a $50/year individual membership in
the Association. AWEA's goal is to promote wind energy as a
clean and environmentally superior source of electricity. Anyone
sharing this goal is invited to become a member--please help!.
For more information on the Association, contact AWEA, 122 C
Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20001, USA, phone (202)
383-2500, fax (202) 383-2505, email windmail@mcimail.com. Or
visit our World Wide Web site at http://www.econet.org/awea
CLIMATE CHANGE
El Nino goes off track; greenhouse gases blamed
ENERGY POLICY
Slash R&D? 'Historic blunder,' say DOE executives
RENEWABLE R&D VITAL TO
NATION'S FUTURE: DOE OFFICIALS
Congress's plans to substantially reduce federal research
funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies
(in multi-year budget projections) are "a blunder of . . .
potentially historic proportions," according to an article by two
high-ranking U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officials in the
April issue of ATLANTIC MONTHLY magazine.
Joseph J. Romm, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Charles B. Curtis, Deputy
Secretary of Energy, describe two future energy scenarios--one
negative and one positive--developed by prestigious
organizations. Pursuing renewables and efficiency, they write,
can help the U.S. recover from the former and better position
itself to take advantage of the economic and employment growth
prospects likely to be offered by the latter.
The first scenario, from DOE's own Energy Information
Administration (EIA) for the year 2005, portrays "a world in
which the Persian Gulf control[s] two-thirds of the world's oil
for export, with $200 billion a year in oil revenues streaming
into that unstable and politically troubled region, and America .
. . importing nearly 60% of its oil, resulting in a $100-billion-
a-year outflow that undermine[s] efforts to reduce our trade
deficit."
Romm and Curtis note that little can be done at this point
to alter this fundamentally gloomy picture of the next decade.
But they add that the development of new technologies that can
diversify the nation's energy supply and stretch out its fossil
fuels could help to reduce the additional shock of a new oil
price rise if one should occur during that time period.
Multi-year research and development (R&D) budget cuts
proposed by Congress, they say, "all but guarantee that if an oil
crisis comes, our national response will be reactive, uninformed,
and unduly burdensome. Having abandoned the technological means
to minimize the crisis, the nation will be left in the next
century with little more than its usual responses . . .: price
controls or other rigid regulations, or unplanned, ineffective
attempts to deal with the effects of sharp price or supply
fluctuations."
While acknowledging that the probability of a new oil shock
remains unclear, Romm and Curtis observe that the fundamental
conditions for one--steadily rising global oil demand and
increasing concentration of world reserves in the Persian Gulf--
are already in place.
In particular, they note that the industrialization of some
of the most populous developing countries, China and India among
them, will place new demands on global supplies, as farm workers
move to the cities to seek employment: "The fundamentals of
urbanization--commuting, transporting raw materials, constructing
infrastructure, powering commercial buildings--all consume large
amounts of oil and electricity.
"At the same time, fewer farms will have to feed more
people, and so the use of mechanization, transportation, and
fertilizer will increase, entailing the consumption of still more
energy and oil. An analysis by one of [DOE]'s national
laboratories found that a doubling of the proportion of China's
and India's populations that lives in cities could increase per
capita energy consumption by 45%--even if industrialization and
income per capita remained unchanged."
The second, more positive scenario, is for the longer term--
through the middle of the next century--and is one of two
planning forecasts developed by Royal Dutch/Shell Group last
year. It depicts "a world in which fossil fuel use has begun a
slow, steady decline; more than a third of the market for new
electricity generation [is] supplied from renewable sources; the
renewables industry [has] annual sales of $150 billion; and the
fastest-growing new source of power [is] solar energy," according
to Romm and Curtis. Additionally, they point out, the Shell
scenario does not assume either that fossil fuel prices will
rise--although there is a case to be made that such rises will
occur--or that governments will incorporate environmental costs
into fossil prices, "even though every single independent
analysis has found that fossil fuel generation has much higher
environmental costs than non-fossil fuel generation has."
Instead, the forecast is based on the current trend of
technical improvements and falling prices of renewable energy
technologies. Biomass and wind, Romm and Curtis write, have
already reached the stage where they are competitive with coal
and traditional energy sources for wholesale power generation.
The future outlook for these technologies, they argue, will
be strongly influenced by federal R&D: "Federal investments
clearly make a difference in technology development and global
market share. Consider the case of photovoltaics. In 1955, Bell
Laboratories invented the first practical PV cell. Through the
1960s and 1970s investments and purchases by NASA [the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration], the Pentagon, and the
National Science Foundation helped to sustain the PV industry and
gave America leadership in world sales. In 1982, federal support
for renewable energy was cut deeply, and within three years Japan
became the world leader in PV sales. The Bush Administration
began to increase funding for solar energy and, in 1990,
collaborated with the American PV industry in efforts to improve
manufacturing technology; three years later the United States
regained the lead in sales in this rapidly growing industry . . .
Renewable energy technologies, Romm and Curtis write, "may
well be the single largest new source of jobs in the next
century," since most manufacturing industries are now mature.
Conclude the two, "Some of the most pressing national needs
in the coming decades are to reduce the country's huge and
growing trade deficit in oil, to minimize any economic or
political threat . . . from . . . growing world dependence on
Persian Gulf oil, to prevent pollution, to avoid irreversibly
changing the global climate, and to capture a large share of the
enormous potential market for energy and environmental
technologies.
"Remarkably, a great many of the same R&D investments can
simultaneously achieve all these ends while cost-effectively
reducing the energy bills of businesses and consumers."
The ATLANTIC MONTHLY article is posted on the World Wide Web
and can be reached through AWEA's Web site at
http://www.igc.apc.org/awea/aweapol.html. A newspaper article
summarizing the Shell future energy scenario is available at the
same address.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS LIKELY
CAUSE OF CURRENT SHIFT
Global climate change resulting from the burning of fossil
fuels and other human activities is the likely culprit in the
strange behavior of the El Nino Pacific Ocean current over the
past several years, according to researchers Kevin Trenberth and
Timothy Hoar of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
El Nino traditionally refers to the periodic warming of
Pacific waters off the coasts of Peru and Ecuador. It is part of
ENSO, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, a large and complex
interaction between the tropical Pacific Ocean and the global
atmosphere. The Pacific warming has been linked to such impacts
as drought in Australia and South America and flooding in
California and along the Gulf Coast.
New findings on the globe's most recent El Nino were
released March 29 by NCAR. This warming of waters in the central
and eastern tropical Pacific lasted from 1990 to mid-1995, the
longest in 130 years of records.
Using a series of sophisticated statistical tests, Trenberth
and Hoar found that such an event would be expected to occur only
once in about 2,000 years--if the climate were unchanging. The
results of their study, they said in an article in the journal
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS in January, raise such climate
questions as: "Is this pattern of change a manifestation of
global warming and related effects of increasing greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere? Or is this pattern a natural variation that
occurs on a time scale of a decade or longer? We have shown that
the latter is highly unlikely."
Both the unusual length of the recent El Nino and the
pattern of more frequent El Ninos over the past 20 years are
statistically unlikely to be the result of natural variations,
Trenberth and Hoar said. An El Nino of such length, given the
existing historical record, is likely to occur about once every
1,500 to 3,000 years, while the change in frequency is a one-in-
2,000 years occurrence.
Current global climate models do not yet do a very good job
of simulating El Nino events, the two said, so the question of
what is causing the recent trend cannot be stated with certainty.
Nevertheless, the low probability of natural causes "opens up the
possibility that the ENSO changes may be partly caused by the
observed increases in greenhouse gases."
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
**************************************
* from the *
* AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION *
**************************************
August 12, 1996
Contact: Sheila McNamara, (202) 383-2500
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
ON RENEWABLE ENERGY VOTE
As you may have already heard, funding for renewable energy
programs was provided for in both the House and Senate. In the
House, an amendment offered by Reps. Schaefer (R-CO), Klug (R-
WI), Thurman (R-FL), Minge (R-MN), Fazio (D-CA), and Salmon (R-
AZ) was passed by an overwhelming majority floor vote of 279 to
135. In the Senate, an amendment being offered by Senators
Jeffords (R-VT), Leahy (D-VT), Roth (R-DE), Chafee (R-RI),
Bumpers (D-AR), Daschle (D-SD), and Murkowski (R-AK) was not
brought to a floor vote but, by unanimous agreement, an amendment
to its Energy and Water Appropriations bill was agreed to which
adds a total of $23 million to renewables programs.
The Congressmen and Senators noted above should be lauded for
their considerable efforts on behalf of renewable energy. We are
asking anyone who lives in either these Congressional districts
or in these Senators' states to write their local newspaper with
a letter to the editor. We are willing to help you craft such a
document and ask that you please forward a copy of your
submission to us. (Even better is an "op/ed" article for the
editorial page--if you are interested in doing something like
this, let us know and we will be happy to help.)
For House members, this is an election year and a letter in
their local newspaper has a powerful effect. Attached is a
list of all the Congressmen who voted in support of and
opposition to this critical amendment. It is vital to our
efforts that they hear from their constituency either to thank or
criticize them for their vote on this amendment. We certainly
want those who have supported us to know that their efforts on
our behalf are greatly appreciated. Conversely, it is important
to let those who did not support the amendment know that they do
have a constituency that holds them accountable on these critical
issues. If you are not sure who your Congressman is, please do
not hesitate to contact me. If you cannot write your local
paper, then the next best thing is a letter sent to your
Congressman's office expressing your views on his/her position in
this matter. Again, we will be happy to assist you in crafting
such a document and we ask that you forward a copy of the letter
or op/ed piece that you write to our offices for our files.
The Senators listed above as well as Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
should also be thanked for their efforts. Again an article in a
newspaper in their state has a tremendous impact but a letter of
thanks would also be appreciated. We request that a copy of any
letter you may write be sent to our offices as maintaining a
complete record of supporters will be critical to our efforts
next year.
To write to your Congressman, the address is:
Rep. ___________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
To write to your U.S. Senator, the address is:
Sen. ___________
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Thanks for your help!
HOW THEY VOTED
The following is a list of how members of the House of
Representatives voted on the
Schaefer-Klug-Thurman-Minge-Salmon-Fazio Amendment to the FY '97
Energy & Water Appropriations bill. The amendment passed 279-135
and added $42 million to DOE's renewable energy budget. An
asterisk (*) denotes a member of the House Renewable Energy
Caucus.
SUPPORTED SCHAEFER/KLUG
Abercrombie D-HI
Ackerman D-NY
Allard R-CO*
Andrews D-NJ
Baker R-LA
Baldacci D-ME*
Barcia D-MI
Barrett R-NE*
Barrett D-WI
Bartlett R-MD*
Becerra D-CA
Beilenson D-CA
Bentsen D-TX
Bereuter R-NE*
Berman D-CA
Bilirakis R-FL*
Bishop D-GA
Bliley R-VA
Blumenauer D-OR
Boehlert R-NY*
Bonilla R-TX
Bonior D-MI
Bono R-CA*
Borski D-PA
Boucher D-VA
Brewster D-OK
Browder D-AL
Brown D-CA*
Brown D-FL
Brown D-OH
Brownback R-KS
Bryant D-TX
Bunn R-OR
Buyer R-IN
Calvert R-CA
Camp R-MI
Campbell R-CA*
Canady R-FL*
Cardin D-MD*
Castle R-DE*
Chabot R-OH
Chambliss R-GA
Christensen R-NE*
Chrysler R-MI
Clay D-MO
Clayton D-NC*
Clement D-TN*
Clinger R-PA
Clyburn D-SC*
Collins D-MI
Condit D-CA
Conyers D-MI
Cooley R-OR
Coyne D-PA
Cramer D-AL
Cummings D-
Cunningham R-CA
Danner D-MO
Deal R-GA*
DeFazio D-OR*
DeLauro D-CT
Dellums D-CA*
Deutsch D-FL
Dickey R-AR
Dicks D-WA
Dingell D-MI
Dixon D-CA
Doggett D-TX*
Dooley D-CA*
Doyle D-PA
Dunn R-WA*
Edwards D-TX
Ehlers R-MI*
Ehrlich R-MD
Engel D-NY
English R-PA
Ensign R-NV*
Eshoo D-CA
Evans D-IL
Ewing R-IL*
Farr D-CA
Fattah D-PA
Fawell R-IL
Fazio D-CA*
Fields D-LA
Fields R-TX
Flanagan R-IL
Foglietta D-PA
Foley R-FL*
Fox R-PA*
Frank D-MA
Franks R-CT
Franks R-NJ
Frost D-TX
Funderburk R-NC
Furse D-OR*
Ganske R-IA*
Gejdenson D-CT
Gephardt D-MO
Geren D-TX
Gilchrest R-MD*
Gillmor R-OH*
Gilman R-NY*
Gonzalez D-TX
Goodling R-PA
Gordon D-TN
Green D-TX*
Greenwood R-PA*
Gutknecht R-MN
Hall D-OH
Hall D-TX
Hamilton D-IN
Hansen R-UT
Harman D-CA
Hastings D-FL*
Hayworth R-AZ
Hefner D-NC
Hilliard D-AL
Hinchey D-NY*
Hobson R-OH
Hoekstra R-MI
Hoke R-OH*
Holden D-PA
Horn R-CA
Hoyer D-MD
Inglis R-SC
Jackson-Lee D-TX
Jacobs D-IN
Jefferson D-LA
Johnson R-CT
Johnson D-SD*
Johnson D-TX
Johnston D-FL
Jones R-NC
Kanjorski D-PA
Kaptur D-OH
Kasich R-OH
Kelly R-NY*
Kennedy D-MA
Kennedy D-RI*
Kennelly D-CT
Kildee D-MI
Kim R-CA
Kingston R-GA
Kleczka D-WI*
Klink D-PA
Klug R-WI*
LaFalce D-NY
Lantos D-CA
Latham R-IA
Lazio R-NY*
Leach R-IA*
Levin D-MI
Lewis D-GA
Linder R-GA
LoBiondo R-NJ
Lofgren D-CA*
Longley R-ME
Lowey D-NY
Luther D-MN
Maloney D-NY*
Manton D-NY
Markey D-MA*
Martinez D-CA
Martini R-NJ
Mascara D-PA
Matsui D-CA*
McCarthy D-MO*
McDermott D-WA*
McHale D-PA
McHugh R-NY
McInnis R-CO*
McKeon R-CA
McKinney D-GA
McNulty D-NY*
Meehan D-MA
Meek D-FL
Metcalf R-WA
Meyers R-KS
Millender-McDonald
D-CA
Miller D-CA
Minge D-MN*
Mink D-HI*
Moakley D-MA
Molinari R-NY
Montgomery D-MS
Moran D-VA
Morella R-MD*
Nadler D-NY
Neal D-MA
Nethercutt R-WA
Neumann R-WI
Nussle R-IA
Oberstar D-MN*
Obey D-WI
Olver D-MA*
Orton D-UT
Owens D-NY
Oxley R-OH*
Pallone D-NJ*
Pastor D-AZ
Payne D-NJ
Payne D-VA
Pelosi D-CA
Peterson D-MN*
Pombo R-CA
Pomeroy D-ND
Porter R-IL
Portman R-OH
Pryce R-OH
Quinn R-NY
Rahall D-WV
Ramstad R-MN*
Rangel D-NY
Reed D-RI
Regula R-OH
Richardson D-NM*
Riggs R-CA*
Rivers D-MI*
Roberts R-KS
Roemer D-IN
Roukema R-NJ
Roybal-Allard D-CA
Sabo D-MN*
Salmon R-AZ*
Sanders I-VT*
Sanford R-SC
Sawyer D-OH
Saxton R-NJ
Scarborough R-FL
Schaefer R-CO*
Schroeder D-CO
Schumer D-NY
Scott D-VA
Serrano D-NY*
Shays R-CT*
Sisisky D-VA
Skaggs D-CO*
Skeen R-NM*
Slaughter D-NY
Smith R-WA
Spratt D-SC
Stearns R-FL
Stenholm D-TX
Stokes D-OH
Studds D-MA
Stump R-AZ
Stupak D-MI*
Taylor D-MS
Tejeda D-TX
Thomas R-CA
Thompson D-MS*
Thornton D-AR
Thurman D-FL*
Tiahrt R-KS
Torkildsen R-MA
Torres D-CA
Torricelli D-NJ
Towns D-NY
Traficant D-OH
Upton R-MI
Vento D-MN
Visclosky D-IN
Volkmer D-MO
Walsh R-NY
Ward D-KY*
Waters D-CA
Watt D-NC
Watts R-OK
Waxman D-CA*
Weldon R-FL
Weldon R-PA
Williams D-MT*
Wise D-WV
Woolsey D-OR*
Wynn D-MD
Yates D-IL
Young R-AK
Zimmer R-NJ
OPPOSED SCHAEFER/KLUG
Archer R-TX
Armey R-TX
Bachus R-AL
Baesler D-KY
Baker R-CA*
Ballenger R-NC
Barr R-GA
Barton R-TX
Bass R-NH
Bateman R-VA*
Bevill D-AL
Bilbray R-CA
Blute R-MA
Boehner R-OH
Bryant R-TN
Bunning R-KY
Burr R-NC*
Burton R-IN
Callahan R-AL
Chapman D-TX*
Chenoweth R-ID
Coble R-NC
Coburn R-OK
Collins R-GA
Combest R-TX
Costello D-IL
Cox R-CA
Crapo R-ID*
Cremeans R-OH
Cubin R-WY
Davis R-VA
de la Garza D-TX
DeLay R-TX
Diaz-Balart R-FL
Doolittle R-CA
Dreier R-CA
Duncan R-TN
Durbin D-IL
Everett R-AL
Filner D-CA
Fowler R-FL
Frelinghuysen R-NJ
Frisa R-NY
Gallegly R-CA
Gekas R-PA
Gibbons D-FL
Goodlatte R-VA
Goss R-FL
Graham R-SC
Greene R-UT
Gunderson R-WI
Gutierrez D-IL
Hancock R-MO
Hastert R-IL
Hastings R-WA
Hefley R-CO*
Heineman R-NC
Herger R-CA
Hilleary R-TN
Hostettler R-IN
Houghton R-NY
Hunter R-CA
Hutchinson R-AR
Hyde R-IL
Istook R-OK
Jackson D-IL
Johnson R-TX
King R-NY
Knollenberg R-MI
Kolbe R-AZ
LaHood R-IL
Largent R-OK
LaTourette R-OH
Laughlin R-TX
Lewis R-CA
Lewis R-KY
Lightfoot R-IA
Lipinski D-IL
Livingston R-LA
Lucas R-OK
Manzullo R-IL
McCollum R-FL
McCrery R-LA
McIntosh R-IN
Menendez D-NJ
Mica R-FL
Miller R-FL
Mollohan D-WV
Moorhead R-CA*
Murtha D-PA
Myers R-IN
Myrick R-NC
Ney R-OH
Norwood R-GA
Ortiz D-TX
Packard R-CA
Parker R-MS
Paxon R-NY
Petri R-WI
Pickett D-VA
Poshard D-IL
Quillen R-TN
Radanovich R-CA
Rogers R-KY
Rohrabacher R-CA
Ros-Lehtinen R-FL
Royce R-CA
Rush D-IL
Schiff R-NM*
Seastrand R-CA
Sensenbrenner R-WI
Shadegg R-AZ
Shaw R-FL*
Shuster R-PA
Skelton D-MO
Smith R-MI
Smith R-TX
Solomon R-NY
Souder R-IN
Spence R-SC
Stark D-CA
Stockman R-TX
Talent R-MO
Tate R-WA
Taylor R-NC
Thornberry R-TX
Vucanovich R-NV*
Walker R-PA
Wamp R-TN*
Weller R-IL
White R-WA
Whitfield R-KY
Wicker R-MS
Wolf R-VA
Zeliff R-NH
NOT VOTING
Coleman D-TX
Collins D-IL
Crane R-IL
Dornan R-CA
Flake D-NY
Forbes R-NY
Ford D-TN
Frazer I-VI*
Hayes R-LA
Lincoln D-AR*
McDade R-PA
Peterson D-FL
Rose D-NC*
Roth R-WI
Smith R-NJ*
Tanner D-TN
Tauzin R-LA*
Velazquez D-NY
Wilson D-TX
Young R-FL
BACK TO
*********************************************************************