TINA CASEY
Republicans are still smarting from the Obama Administration’s decision to reject construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline — even holding a hearing on Wednesday attempting to circumvent the decision.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is pushing ahead on a massive solar project designed to lower its long-term energy costs, one that happens to be backed by a company that conservatives have deemed “Solyndra 2.0.”
The U.S. Navy last week broke ground a gigantic 13.8 megawatt solar power installation at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California as part of a broad strategic program to transition U.S. military facilities out of dependence on both domestic and foreign sources of oil.
The project is noteworthy because it’s the first time a federal agency has financed a solar project through a 20-year power purchase agreement, and because Republican lawmakers targeted the company during the Solyndra investigation.
Power purchase agreements are becoming a routine way to finance solar installations with no money down. The property owner pays only for the electricity used on site, at a lower rate than conventional energy. In some cases the installer, or its partners, can generate additional income by selling excess electricity back to the grid.
The Navy expects to save about $13 million over the 20-year life of the contract, significantly more than it would save on a standard ten-year contract.
But the company its chosen to partner with has come under the crosshairs of conservatives online and Republicans in Congress.
SunPower Corp. was branded “Solyndra 2.0” by conservative writers in the Fall of 2011, based on the facts that the company received a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy for a project in California, had debt totaling 80 percent of its market value, and that the company was represented by the son of Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who writers admitted had no proven connection to the Energy Department’s decision to grant the loan guarantee.
Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which spearheaded the Republicans’ investigation into the Solyndra bankruptcy, both sought documents from the Energy Department on its loan guarantees to SunPower.
This was around the same time that Republican-led hearings into Solyndra failed to reveal evidence of political favoritism or other misdoings over Solyndra’s $535 million federal loan guarantee, so the conservative media was looking around for other examples of Obama’s green jobs initiative gone awry.
However, the SunPower issue gained even less traction than Solyndra — no hearings were held into SunPower specifically, although the team at Fox News was up in arms about it — and it appears to have dropped from the conservative radar, at least for now.
It’s also worth noting that the groundbreaking at China Lake coincided with last week’s Army Net Zero Energy Installations Conference in Chicago, which highlighted the Army’s progress toward transitioning out of oil dependency.
The Army’s Net Zero “vision” literally calls for Army facilities to be able to operate using energy generated on site in case of outside power disruptions, which effectively promotes the installation of renewable energy sources on site including solar, wind and geothermal.
In addition to improving domestic energy security by reducing fossil fuel use at home bases, the Department of Defense is also engaged in a “hard push” to reduce battlefield risks by cutting down on its use of fossil fuels overseas. In a recent American Forces Press Service article, Oliver Fritz of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, explained the connection between a smaller carbon footprint and troop safety:
“Historically, energy has been a decisive factor in warfighting, … most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, where you see fuel not only being needed in increasing quantities, but being moved over a battlefield without front lines… [renewable energy] technologies are cleaner and do have a lower carbon footprint, and in a way, that carbon footprint is a metaphor for some of the logistics risks that we’re trying to reduce.”
Putting that concept into action, the Navy and Marine Corps have been integrating renewable energy and other new energy strategies into an experimental forward operating base in Afghanistan. As described by the Marines, “our priority is to save lives by reducing the number of Marines at risk on the road hauling fuel and water.”
Against this backdrop, House Republicans’ efforts to gain approval for the Keystone XL Pipeline appear to be directly at odds with the Pentagon’s long term strategy for energy security.
More to the point, Republicans seem to be running into their own circular logic.
Before Wednesday morning’s hearing on the North American Energy Access Act, which would take the Keystone XL approval process out of the President’s hands, a key witness, Mike Linder of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, was pulled by Republican committee members at the last minute over a scheduling dispute, The Hill reported.
Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, didn’t mince words in her written testimony, though.
After detailing the review process undertaken prior to a sixty-day deadline imposed by Republicans in Congress late last year, Jones stated:
“We decided — based not on the merits but on the inadequate time period and incomplete review — to recommend that the President deny the permit. Last week the President concurred with our recommendation that the Keystone XL project would not serve the national interest at this time.”
Jones also takes House Republicans to task over the North American Energy Access Act:
“This new legislation… imposes narrow time constraints and creates automatic mandates that prevent an informed decision. The legislation raises serious questions about existing legal authorities, questions the continuing force of much of the federal and all of the state and local environmental and land use management authority over the pipeline, and overrides foreign policy and national security considerations implicated by a cross border permit, which are properly assessed by the State Department.”
Given these obstacles, it seems likely that today’s hearing was another show designed to put President Obama on the spot over job creation and energy policy.
While that is what it is, House Republicans may be inadvertently setting themselves up for a fight against the armed services in the longer-term.
The Navy’s China Lake installation and the Army’s Net Zero initiative are only the first few programs in a long string of renewable energy projects that the Department of Defense is rolling out this year, highlighted by the deployment of an entire “Green Strike Force” for the Navy’s participation in the Rim of the Pacific international maritime exercise this summer.
OH. Invoking actual data are we? You will have to verify that the 13.8 megawatt installation is indeed referring to peak power (the only way your 20% claim can hold water - comparing the solar panel production in the dark (zero) it to the maximum it produces, in full sun - it is a proven technique for the fossil fuel/hot earth lovers to try to devalue renewables.
But, you are asking the wrong questions. What is the overall load? What is the storage capacity? With that and the 13.8 nameplate rating, you can determine if the military is serious, or if this is a feel good project. No need to cast vague aspersions - get the facts and make an honest determination.
Actually thoughtful Oh, please! When have you EVER seen a solar project where the rating wasn't referring to peak power? And the <20% isn't some scam by evil fossil fuel/hot earth lovers (neither of which would describe me), it's a measure of capacity factor. We're talking about the actual number of kWh of electricity produced. And if there IS any storage capacity involved, that doesn't change it. I've seen that bogus argument before, where capacity factor is purposely conflated with availability. If you've got storage so that you have electricity for more hours of the day, then you've got less electricity overall than you would have had without storage (because you lose some in the storage and conversion). Yes, I will invoke actual data. You talk as if that's a bad thing. Do you prefer feel good projects?
President Lindsay In calculating the "footprint" for a fossil or nuclear power plant, we should also include the aggregate "footprints" of the extraction zones, processing plants, and waste containment/storage facilities which feed and support them: coal or uranium mines, refineries, mills, enrichment reactors, spent fuel rod holding tanks, slag heaps, fly-ash ponds, etc. There's more infrastructure behind legacy energy technologies than just the power plants, and the issues regarding toxic residue remain unresolved.
Michael Loraine Unless you consider integral fast reactors, which use spent nuclear fuel from current reactor systems as fuel. No more mining nor enrichment for hundreds of years, and very small amounts of short-lived waste that can be easily and safely disposed of. So yes, I'll gladly compare footprints of those systems with any possible energy system out there.
President Lindsay So "your" reactor requires the entire footprint of an ordinary nuclear plant, PLUS a nuclear plant to use the original fuel and produce spent fuel rods. That's a bigger footprint than an ordinary nuke.
However, footprint is not the issue. The idea is to generate power onsite using resources at hand, thereby eliminating the need for the supply-line. What China Lake has lots of is sunshine...and earthquakes. What it lacks is a water supply to cool any kind of nuclear reactor you can name. A nuke plant is (or should be) out of the question.
A solar installation, on the other hand, might just generate enough power to run the air-conditioners and other equipment at Michelson Lab, a major research facility. In fact, it would likely generate the most power at peak demand time: daytimes during the summer. It could save millions each year.
I don't ordinarily associate "good ideas" with the US military, but in this case, I will make an exception. I think the Navy's got this right, and I'd like to see more of it.
Solar power installation at China Lake? That is really an excellent idea! It's a huge tract of Mojave Desert with loads of sunshine. The Air Force could easily do the same at nearby Edwards AFB.
This might be a useful avenue for green energy proponents to consider. The military is not going away any time soon. If someone can design & develop clean, renewable energy alternatives to power things the military uses, the general technology (minus specific military adaptations) will become widely available due to the concurrent development of manufacturing infrastructure and growing public demand.
@Michael Loraine Yes, and the military and federal government has large tracts of land. This project could be the basis of a way to transition so many returning troops into rewarding, meaningful careers that utilize cutting-edge technologies.
I know a retired military officer who is trying to set up a factory and he wants to employ veterans, as he is comfortable with them and recognizes their discipline, unit cohesion, sense of teamwork, and willingness to train.
Addicts, be they alcoholic or oiloholic, are in the grip of denial to such a degree that they cannot pursue a better future. The shrinking supply of oil is too valuable to be incinerated and can neither support our nation’s future nor that of an oil guzzling world. To view a pipeline as important to the nations growth make no more sense than the drunk searching and searching for a bottle of booze that he thinks he must have hidden somewhere in the barn.
I'm no hawk, but I believe the US military has the potential to be the most progressive force on earth. As the largest energy consumer, the Pentagon can help drive renewable energy to become a commercially viable industry through its sheer size. And solar is perfectly suited for providing energy on bases located in remote isolated areas and reduce the massive need for battery power.
These projects hopefully will also provide troops with good real-world experience and training that will translate into good paying careers, and make the Pentagon truly an agency for "defense" in that they could reduce our reliance on foreign oil and make us more energy-independent. And as an earlier poster noted, some credit should go to President GW Bush for signing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 one day after it passed both houses of Congress.
Other progressive initiatives: racially integrating the military years before civil rights legislation, and supporting President Obama's move to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Case in point - Harry Truman ordered the integration of the armed forces (also by executive order, as Obama is doing here) and it happened quickly and much more effectively than in civilian life.
Understandable why these type of actions were slow to come about with Bush/Cheney being oil and/or Haliburton men. But even the Rs are going to have a hard time spinning cost-savings, independence from petrol-archies, and possible increased troop readiness against Obama.
I also really like what the Army and Navy are doing with advancing the use of biodiesel from local sources, that have a near zero-carbon footprint (the only carbon released into the atmosphere is carbon taken out of the atmosphere by the source crops.)
Randy Abraham
@Mr.E. I find all these new energy sources interesting, and their adoption by the military could accelerate their acceptance by providing momentum and critical mass. In the same vein, I feel that vehicles powered by electricity, biofuels or hydrogen could get a boost if institutions choose them for their fleets. Imagine if UPS, Fedex, the Post Office, or some other large fleet-operating organization decided to replace tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles with electric, biofuel, hydrogen, or hybrid-powered models. That would be a huge shot in the arm in terms of commercial viability, provide funding for next-generation R and D, and provide efficiencies of scale that more boutique operations don't enjoy.
Mr.E.Randy Abraham The problem with counting the 100% of the carbon captured by source crops as on offset against biodiesel emissions is it ignores the carbon capture that would have occurred on that land anyway had it been used for some other purpose.
sullivanstMr.E.Randy Abraham No. The default position of that land, whatever crops or forests may be on it, is carbon neutral. Whether by forest fire or biodegradation, the carbon fixed from the atmosphere by plants goes back into the atmosphere as surely as it does burning in a diesel engine. The difference is where we get our Watt; if we take energetic hydrocarbons from under the ground where they've been for millions of years, we add carbon to the modern atmosphere that wasn't there beforehand, whereas if we get it from a photosynthetic (read: solar) process, the carbon in question was already in that modern atmosphere.
Randy Abraham Now if we can just get the armed forces to STOP KILLING PEOPLE, then we'd have something...
shoes4industry the soldiers just do what they're told. It's up to civilian leadership, which sets the policy.
shoes4industry I remember that, and it was horrible. I don't deny that war is horrible and twists people up to do terrible things. Sometimes it attracts people who are twisted to begin with. I still think that most soldiers are not like that, and that it takes strong military and civilian leadership to instill the right values in our troops.
I was a couple years to young to be drafted into Vietnam, and was grateful for that. I knew many people who came back a shell of their former selves. My cousin saw some terrible massacres and was almost wiped out along with the rest of his unit. He developed a drinking and chain-smoking problem and for years had trouble holding down a job.
But this project is an example of the kinds of things we can do in the name of defense that does not inolve killing people. This is about developing a safe, clean, abundant and renewable form of energy that can improve lives, help create jobs and prosperity, and get us out of the death spiral that leads us to wars over limited resources. And with the huge platform the military provides, we are presented with a laboratory in which we can do large-scale things that benefit us.
I will follow the marines into this. That's where the future is. The whole planet s running away from fossil fuel and we can't be left in the dust. I can't believe so many in Congress have been bought and paid to work against our country's interest.
As a Hispanic, CHOLO, GANGSTER & follower of the LOWRIDER culture from San Diego California, for Solar Energy to gain traction both commercially & politically there are a series of steps in tax, regulatory & trade policy that will accelerate commercialisation. For President Obama & the Democrats, Government labs should adopt early licensing & royalties programs such as in China & Cuba where government agencies & the military will give some opportunity for government scientists & engineers to personally profit from selling cutting edge technologies from revenues & then putting back those profits into scientific research & development rather than into the general treasury.
Back a couple hundred years ago people started inventing some interesting stuff. It led to a thing called the Industrial Revolution. Steam was big back then and coal was a good heat source. Then they figured oil out and it was even better. Add in electricity and we exploded into a world of development that seems to have stalled out with the space race. As a society or civilization we seem to have gotten stuck in the oil groove. I wonder why?
Hoodathunk They want to take our country back . . . to 1850 or 1750.
Remember, Republicans think America of today sucks. They say it every day.
"Given these obstacles, it seems likely that today’s hearing was another show designed to put President Obama <strike>on the spot over job creation and energy policy</strike>in his place."
FTFY.
I'm reminded of the military origins of this thing called the Internet.
AdAbsurdum Television, night vision, cell phones. The list of military contributions is very long indeed - currently DARPA has a bunch too.
HandyAdAbsurdum In general: war drives technology, technology drives business.
lateniteguy60AdAbsurdum Well, as much as I hate it, it is true.
Show of hands, who actually believes that the administration WON'T sign off on the Tombstone Oil Pipeline deal, on Nov. 7th, 2012?
shoes4industry When there is a full route to sign off on, yep, it'll happen. The GOP is blaming Obama and State Dept. for not going with the GOP timeline. Media is not pointing out that since the state of Nebraska has yet to approve a route through their state (state's rights, eh GOP?) there is NOTHING to sign off on. A pipeline that goes to the border of Nebraska then stops abruptly is not something any federal official can OK.
attilatheblond Why not just skip the pipeline and pump it into the Mississippi River and let it float down to the refineries on the Gulf?
shoes4industry Tar crud already gets to refineries here via Steele City, Kansas.
shoes4industry Depends critically on whether TransCanada re-applies. That in turn will depend critically on whether their shippers are still on board now that the GOP's actions have significantly delayed the possible completion date.
It's almost certain that approval simply won't be an option on 11/7.
sullivanst The point is it was never the presidents intention NOT so sign off on this scam.
Frack Big Oil and the chicken hawk GOP pols they rode in on. Renewable and solar will really make America safer.
And why does the GOP whine that we have to 'listen to the military' until the military says something wise the corporations don't like?
Sunpower is a great company making a great product. It was founded by one of the pioneers of silicon solar cell development. They make the best solar cell on the market. If I was going to buy a solar panel today it would be a Sunpower panel hands down.
The solyndra idea was a dumb assed idea from the get go. It took the promise of a low cost thin film CI(G)S technology and put it into a configuration that made it complicated and expensive to manufacture thus giving up its advantage over silicon in the market place. Stupid. Even without the cut throat competition from China. Solyndra was pushed on the DOE by the political appointees of the Bush administration and then eagerly picked up on by the Obama people during the days of the stimulus because it was a way to spend when that was what they were looking for.
Sunpower bears no similarity what so ever with Solyndra except that they both were in the business of making a product that makes electricity from sunlight.
SW Solyndra was not nearly as dumb as you try to paint it. The expensive manufacturing yielded a tangible benefit: installation was much simpler, and possible in more locations, than the alternatives. The simpler (read: cheaper) installation offset the increased manufacturing cost... until the price of silicon fell off a cliff.
The product is still interesting because of its ability to shed snow.
SW I own 24 Sunpower panels making about 3.8KWhr of power peak! When I was shopping for my system, Sunpower panels were the most efficient of any I reviewed at 18%. Of course, NASA panels get 40% or more, but they use a much more expensive production technique. Go Sunpower
o224hsdaySW and NASAs panels are in space with no physical protection against wind, rain, baseballs, etc
Cant wait till there is a USS Obama.
Napster Nimitz Class, for sure.
Why do Republicans hate the sun so much...?
PearlyWhite Paint it black and they might come around.
Napster Oh, they'd just turn around and accuse the Prez of being a solar racist....
PearlyWhite Because they don't like to share.
Eric Madsen They don't like what some corporation can't get total control of. They sure don't like what corporations can't bill people for.
PearlyWhite They can't own it!
KSarrow Or sell/lease to their donor patrons for rates from a bygone era.
Damn! Our current Commander-in-Chief has turned out to be the strongest, smartest, and most forward-thinking we've had in a long time.
Make the military leaner and more efficient at a time when the general public needs to see some real examples of how cleaner energy can be successful, as clean energy in and of itself is a national security issue -- Brilliant!
audiar You know, I think this is bigger than Obama. Bush might even deserve some credit, or those around him, because I don't know when the Navy started planning this! It's about time our people realized the power of the sun. Really, solutions can be quite simple. It drives me nuts.
KSarrow You are probably right. And GWB does deserve credit for appointing Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense, just as Obama deserves credit for keeping him on.
"...a gigantic 13.8 megawatt solar power installation..." Really? Gigantic? Solar is only going to get you less than a 20% capacity factor, so you're talking about 2.75 megawatts, and intermittent at that. A normal power plant (fossil or nuclear) would be about 1000 megawatts, over 360 times bigger in terms of power production (but a hell of a lot smaller footprint). Well, maybe what they were just talking about the footprint—or the cost.
Hey, solar's cool. Just look at how great it's doing in Germany: tinyurl.com/38alt4c
Click through the month of December, for instance. And for this they've only committed 100 billion Euros or so.
But who looks at actual data these days? That is so Sixties...
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like