In the Southwest United States, an enormous solar energy resource remains largely untapped. There is already more than 500 MW of concentrating solar thermal power in the United States and Spain primarily, but there is significant scope to scale up development. As Congress oversees the nation’s transition to a clean energy economy, a homegrown renewable energy technology—concentrating solar thermal power—can help cut emissions and enhance energy security with American resources.
- Download Factsheet as PDF (341 Kb)
Concentrating solar thermal (CST) technology uses reflective material to concentrate the sun’s rays to power steam turbines or engines. When combined with thermal energy storage—which enables a plant to produce power under cloud cover and after the sun has set—CST can generate electricity on demand, not just when the sun is shining. This makes CST different from many other renewable power sources. While many renewables provide power intermittently, CST with thermal energy storage can provide around-the-clock power, potentially offering a low-carbon solution to baseload power demand.
CST, which can provide power without increasing carbon dioxide emissions, will be an important part of the energy solution in the United States. Congress can enact legislation that will facilitate bringing it to scale. Below are specific recommendations for how Congress can help the country take advantage of CST:
- Enact a price on carbon. CST currently is more expensive than coal and other fossil fuel sources. Because CST is a low-carbon technology, enacting a carbon price would help the technology compete with conventional sources. Capand- trade is one mechanism for developing a carbon price.
- Fund RD&D. Research, development, and demonstration support will facilitate cost reductions of materials and systems, including thermal energy storage, which can bring down costs to make CST competitive with conventional sources of baseload power.
- Create a national Renewable Energy Standard (RES). Currently, some states with RES have a solar “carve out,” or a percentage set aside that must come specifically from solar. These policies have accelerated deployment of CST in those states and increased utility confidence in the technology. A national RES, including a mandate for solar, would send a market signal to invest in renewables such as CST.
- Push for CST in international technology partnerships. China, India, and countries in the Middle East and North Africa have great potential for CST. As a promising option to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy security, CST should be a priority in international collaboration on RD&D issues. For instance, the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund includes a program dedicated to deploying concentrating solar thermal power.
- Improve the grid and transmission system. Greater federal oversight of the electricity grid and/or improved coordination between grid operators will help bring CST power from the country’s prime CST areas, the Southwest to a broader area.
- Consider alternative investment incentives. While tax credits such as the 2008 Investment Tax Credit extension are important, they are subject to periodic and uncertain renewal, which presents a challenge to investors. Moreover, in the current economy, tax-based incentives may not be as accessible to project developers as they have been in the past. Incentives such as feed-in tariffs, widely used in Europe, require utilities to pay renewable energy generators a fixed, above-wholesale price for the power they produce. Thus, feed-in tariffs directly raise the price paid for renewable generation and guarantees it a buyer over a period of time—a more stable signal to investors.
Rob Bradley, Director of International Climate PolicyRob Bradley is Director of WRI’s International Climate Policy Initiative.
3 Comments
Dear Mr. Bradley: I could
Dear Mr. Bradley:
I could support most of your suggestions or recommendations except one. The one dealing with a carbon tax which is commonly refered to as Cap and Trade or Cap and Tax. The House version will increase the cost of every product we use. Gasoline, heating oil, electricity, autos, trucks, food, RV's tires, batteries, in fact almost everything that takes some form of energy to produce. As of today, I don't think we really know what the final legislation will look like. There are alternatives and one of them that I like is below.
I suggest the following: present a bill in Congress to raise the Federal gas tax $1.00 per gallon either phased in over 4 years or all at once. HOWEVER, one provision of the bill must be that the federal government would ONLY get to keep 10% of the money collected to administer the gas tax program. The other 90% could ONLY be used to fund renewable energy sources for our country which would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This would amount to about $137 billion dollars a year for direct funding to renewable energy projects. You can build lots of CSP and photovoltaic power with that kind of money. In just 10 years we will have invested $1.37 trillion dollars in renewable energy and will probably be a world leader in carbon reduction plus in all likelyhood be energy independent.
So lets see how something very simple like an increase in the gas tax could meet your objectives.
Enact a price on carbon - Sorry but I just don't see this as the most cost effective method of cleaning our air, improving the quality of our water and removing CO2 from our planet because:
Cap and Trade is not a simple tax and in fact would be the largest tax increase on the American people in the history of our country in its current form. Cap and Trade does not:
1. Create wealth or help the American people in any way. In fact it robs the people of needed funds by increasing the cost of energy at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
2. Cap and trade is perceived by the American people as just another tax to help create a bigger government or to line the pockets of a few individuals or corporations.
3. Cap and trade is not a product - you can't eat it, the public can't spend or save it, you can't drive it or plant it in the ground and watch it grow.
I am not saying that ALL provisions of cap and trade are bad ideas rather it is just not the most cost effective idea given our current economic condition.
Fund RD&D - I fully support this idea.
Create a national Renewable Energy Standard (RES) - This is also working quite well and we should continue.
Push for CST in international technology partnerships - this is also a good idea.
Improve the grid and transmission system - also a good idea. What good is renewable energy if you can't get it to the market although distributed generation might make more sense in some cases.
Consider alternative investment incentives - this is where the gas tax idea begins to have a life of its own. While a gas tax is not considered to be an incentive it sure is an alternative.
When gasoline prices peaked in 2008 we all conserved just a little; well I did but I can't speak for everyone. Of course we all complained about the price but we adjusted by maybe driving a little less or even learning how to combine some trips to cut costs. We might not have liked it but we all learned to live with $4.00/gallon gasoline.
What did this accomplish? Well for one thing it reduced our gasoline consumption in 2008 by 4,548,810,000 [that's 4.5 billion gallons] when prices peaked [see below data]. Depending on which value you use either 18 lbs or 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon that's still a whole bunch of carbon.
Now I don't know how much carbon and other pollution was reduced by burning 4.5 billion fewer gallons of gasoline but I'll bet you a steak dinner it's a lot more than will be accomplished in the first year of Cap and Trade if it ever passes.
What else did we learn from higher gasoline prices. We learned how to conserve just a little which most people feel is a good idea. Who knows if we keep this up we might even learn to be a society that conserves instead of one that consumes everything in sight.
We also learned that if we bought a more fuel efficient car [hybrid for example] the increase in fuel cost was canceled out by the higher mileage we achieved.
Thank you for listening.
tomgarven@hotmail.com
If you write please put 'GAS TAX' in the subject line.
Fuel consumption data
2007 = 142,349,298,000 gallons
2008 = 137,800,488,000 gallons
http://www.americanfuels.info/2009/03/2008-gasoline-consumpt...
Clearing up
Clearing up misconceptions
First, I agree with you on a gas tax, which would force people to be more fuel-efficient and capture the rents for taxpayers -- or the renewable energy sector as you propose -- instead of petrodictators. But I can't disagree with you more about cap-and-trade.
You have obviously never heard of the Clean Air Act of 1990, which imposed a cap-and-trade system on acid rain emissions like SO2 and NOx, smog emissions like ozone and hydrocarbons, and soot. People like you were screaming from the rooftops, "This will damage our economy! This will raise costs on everything! This will be the end of American capitalism!"
Of course, no such thing happened. Instead, utilities, factories, auto makers and other emitters innovated, first picking the low-hanging fruit, and those who could cut more sold their permits to those who could not. The net result cut emissions by some 95%, eliminating acid rain in the Northeast (caused by plants in the midwest). The 90s saw the longest peacetime expansion in US history, and US minimills became the world's low-cost producer of steel. So much for the disaster scenario.
Since the majority of the permits are being given away by the plans which are actually passing, there is in fact no such tax of the kind you're describing. Please get your facts straight.
The impact on the economy will be minimal through 2020, with decreased output from the dirtiest industries (coal electricity, primary steel) more than offset by increased jobs in lower-carbon infrastructure investment (renewables, nuclear, natural gas -- which emits half the GHG per kWh of coal). We can easily get to 2020 just by picking off low-hanging fruit, like not leaving air conditioning on with windows open.
The economy disaster scenario of the propagandists never materialized in the 1990s, and will not in the 2010s. If we don't do this, the climate disaster scenarios will come upon us fast and furious, and it will be too late for us to do anything about it.
Dear Adam: Yes I am familiar
Dear Adam:
Yes I am familiar with the Clean Air Act of 1990 and yes it has been successful in reducing acid rain as you described. I am also familiar with the CARB, the EPA and other agencies who have helped clean up the air we breathe and the water we drink. I recently visited California and you could actually see the mountains 40 miles away. Massive improvements.
In my post I believe I did state that not all provision of Cap and Trade are bad just some aspects of the pending legislation. For example, I prefer an increase in the gas tax for some of the following reasons.
1. Tracking the number of gallons of gasoline used is currently being done and is easily verifiable. Therefore the tax is easy to calculate.
2. No new government agencies are required to implement this increased carbon tax.
3. Some percentage [?] of the American people no longer believe the Government is capable of managing a program as complex as Cap and Trade nor is it in the best interest of the people.
4. Implementing a phased in gas tax will allow the American people to see what is coming down the pike and allow them to plan for the future. If I know that gasoline is going to be $1.00/gallon higher 4 years from now this may affect what type of vehicle I purchase today.
5. Having a phased in gas tax would send a signal to the automobile manufacturers [and the American people] around the world that the U.S. is getting serious about controlling emissions. Further more it would also allow manufactures to plan ahead which they can't do now since the rules keep changing. When gas prices are high everyone talks hybrids and small cars. When gas gets cheap we buy SUV's.
6. Some Americans no longer trust the government to make wise financial decisions affecting our lives and the lives of their children. The American people are getting weary of out-of-control-spending, and;
7. This is not a NEW idea. It is not even MY idea and it may not even be the BEST idea, it's just an idea. Well I guess you could say the 90% 10% phased in approach is mine but that might not be true since I have never researched that aspect.
Doing a Google search for 'gas tax increase' will get you the names of some of the people and organizations who supports a gas tax increase. You will find people like Lee Iaccoca and Bill Ford and even the some organizations like the Chambers of Commerce. Even some of our news organizations are beginning to see that taxing everything and creating new government agencies may not be the best approach.
At the ripe old age of 69 I am wise enough to realize that there is not a snow balls chance in h-ll that a 90% 10% phased in gas tax will ever pass. For something like that to pass real leadership and courage would be required to even bring up the subject. Not only that, every special interest group and lobbyists would want their 300 page amendment added at 3:00 a.m. in the morning before passage. Congress is fast becoming the best late night joke going.
However I am going to make the following predictions just for the fun of it.
1. An increase in the gas tax will be signed into law this year and will have nothing to do with funding renewable energy and very little to do with fixing our highways.
2. Some form of Cap and Trade will be signed into law.
Thank you for the spirited discussion and I value your opinion.
tomgarven@hotmail.com