Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Wind power set to decline under Obama?

by Jerome a Paris Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 10:05:06 AM EST

For the fourth consecutive year, the US set records in 2008 for the construction of new wind farms, with more than 8,300MW installed in the year, making the country the leader for both yearly installations and, for the first time in many years, overall installed capacity (nudging out Germany which has long been the world leader). The sector created a record number of jobs at a time when few other sectors did.

But for reasons linked to the inconsistent regulatory framework until now, and to the ongoing credit crisis, 2009 is likely to be a bad year for wind, with a decline in installations and, possibly, layoffs.

Of course, Obama is not to blame for that situation, which he inherits, but it will be a pretty bad signal to see wind power decline significantly this year - and it would be an inexcusable one if that decline continues into 2010. The current stimulus plan does include measures to support the industry, but these seem oddly unambitious given the context of economic crisis and wind's proven ability to create jobs and economic activity, to provide cheap power and to eliminate both carbon emissions and fossil fuel imports.

Earlier diaries: Windpower series


First, the good news for the past year:


WIND ENERGY GROWS BY RECORD 8,300 MW IN 2008

The U.S. wind energy industry shattered all previous records in 2008 by installing 8,358 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity (enough to serve over 2 million homes), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today, even as it warned of an uncertain outlook for 2009 due to the continuing financial crisis.

The massive growth in 2008 swelled the nation's total wind power generating capacity by 50% and channeled an investment of some $17 billion into the economy, positioning wind power as one of the leading sources of new power generation in the country today along with natural gas, AWEA added.  

(...)

The new wind projects completed in 2008 account for about 42% of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally last year, according to initial estimates, and will avoid nearly 44 million tons of carbon emissions, the equivalent of taking over 7 million cars off of the road.    

(...)

About 85,000 people are employed in the wind industry today, up from 50,000 a year ago, and hold jobs in areas as varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.  

(...)

Wind power's recent growth has also accelerated job creation in manufacturing, where the share of domestically manufactured wind turbine components has grown from under 30% in 2005 to about 50% in 2008.   Wind turbine and turbine component manufacturers announced, added or expanded 70 new facilities in the past two years, including over 55 in 2008 alone. Those new manufacturing facilities created 13,000 new direct jobs in 2008.

Massive job creation; large turnover (44% of capacity installation means more than half of turnover of the power construction industry, given that wind MWs are more expensive than gas-fired one to build - which does not mean that electricity is more expensive, as there is no need to buy gas to produce it...); significant carbon displacement. What's not to like.

A very recent European study suggested that wind creates 15 jobs per MW built in the year of construction, and 0.4 permanent job per MW installed:

You'll note that the US, with 85,000 jobs, was close to catching up on Europe, in just a few years; with a lot more room to build more (and cheaper) wind farms onshore, there was no reason why the industry could not power ahead in coming years.

However, two things are endangering this: regulatory uncertainty, and the credit crisis.

As the above graph shows, the lack of consistency in the regulatory framework in the US has already killed the industry 3 times over the past decade: the PTC (production tax credit), the main federal scheme to support wind, has been mishandled to a criminal extent - by being renewed much too late each time it was due to lapse.

This happened once again this year, with the PTC for projects built in 2009 becoming law only in November (as part of the Paulson TARP). Given that you need a number of months to build a windfarm, all projects that could not be completed before the end of 2008 - ie basically all projects for which construction could not start before last summer, were stopped until investors were sure that the PTC would be in place at the time of completion (because the PTC drives the level of revenues for the first 10 years of production of a windfarm). Construction decisions taken after the November resinstatement will only lead to projects being put in line much later in 2009.

But, in addition to this instability, the credit crisis is creating additional difficulties, in two ways.

  • The first one is that the PTC was turned into money to build the wind farm thanks to investors willing to provide future tax payments from which the PTC could be deducted; the most active investors in that market were the big invesmtent banks like Lehman or Morgan Stanley, who have either disappeared or have seen their profits (and thus their ability to cash in PTCs) disappear. This has been solved to some extent by allowing utilities to get the PTCs, something they were prevented to do until now, but it requires tweaking to investment structures that had been put in place.
  • The second issue is, of course, that the credit crisis has made lending a lot scarcer. Wind, where most of the costs are upfront, in the initial construction investment, relies to a large extent on debt financing to make it possible to spread that investment cost over very long term power production volumes. Such debt is a lot harder to find, and when available, is more expensive than it used to be. There is no easy solution to that, although the proposal in the current stimulus plan to authorise projects to convert the PTC into an "ITC" (ie a direct investment subsidy paid upfront) will be a major help.

So the situation now is that we have an industrial activity which provides a lot of good things, but is handicapped in the short term by the consequences of past bad government and the credit crunch. 2009 will be a mediocre year, that much is pretty much certain by now, given that minimal lag time for projects, but it would be rather incomprehensible if 2010 did not show a massive turnaround.

This does not require massive subsidies, but a few small things:

  • an acknowledgement that wind is a large-scale solution (not a silver bullet, not the only solution, but a good part of the solution to a number of problems) that needs to be taken seriously and not just as a bone given to green groups to appease them;
  • in turn, all that wind needs is a stable regulatory framework. The PTC works, but it needs to remain in place for more than a year or two at a time. State RPS (renewable portfolio standards, ie obligations for utilities to produce a given % of their power from renewables within agreed timeframes) work, but they create a patchwork of different rules across the country. There is a need to provide a simple, consistent and permanent set of federal rules. Personally, I think that a feed-in tariff (ie a fixed price guaranteed to reneable energy producers) would be best: it works, as demonstrated in Europe, and it actually reduces electricity costs for consumers when wind penetration gets high enough (in the 5-10% range);
  • the main flank of federal action will be a long term plan to reinforce the power grid in a coherent and systematic way, in order for wind to be better absorbed into the system: this fits perfectly well with Obama's discourse to invest in infrastructure. But it needs to be done on a scale that makes sense - not just a few billion sprinkled here or there.

Just to avoid ad hominem attacks: I finance wind power and am not a disinterested party. However, I don't finance wind in the US, only in Europe and I don't just finance wind: I finance all energy sectors, including oil&gas, traditional power and nuclear. My job is to identify risks and weaknesses of projects and we would not be financing wind if we thought that it was not inherently sound to do so; do note in that context that subsidies can make a project economically viable but they do entail political risk which we also have to take into account, especially when subsidies are high or politically contentious. This is a minor risk for wind.

Display:
I added this comment to Jerome's DailyKos diary, so I'll add it here as well.

Here is the May 2008 U.S. Department of Energy report on wind energy 20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030, which someone termed the best government report in many, many years along the lines of a national industrial policy.

The destructive nature of an uncertain investment climate is all too clear in the example of wind energy in the U.S. A national industrial policy is the best way to solve this problem.

California was the world leader of wind energy technology in the 1970s, but when the Reaganuts took power, and abandoned the idea of industrial policy, leadership shifted to Europe, where it remains today. In fact, the U.S. is right now only able to manufacture just over half the content of a large scale wind turbine (details are in the DoE report).

To achieve 20 percent wind energy by 2030 requires construction of about 100,000 wind turbines, at a cost of around $1 trillion, and an extensive reworking of the national electricity distribution grid, at a cost of around another $1 trillion.

But 20 percent wind energy by 2030 is a very modest goal. With the adoption of clear national goals, I believe we can achieve 50 percent wind energy by 2020. This is almost exactly the same goal recently advocated by U.S. wind energy pioneer Paul Gipe, One Million Megawatts of New Wind Capacity.

Industrial policy, people, industrial policy. Saving the financial system results in no forward progress without an industrial policy.

by NBBooks on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:51:25 AM EST
this was the reason for my negative sounding (and, of course, provocative) title: current policy measures amount o incremental improvements to regulation, which might deliver some progress in nomral times, but risk being woefully insufficient to even maintain the industry this year and next - a pity when the potential to do so much more is right at hand.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:59:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... as the cost of the new long haul transmission capacity.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 03:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
2 trillion...half of what we're going to end up giving to the banking industry.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 05:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The combination of "very modest" and "$1 trillion" seems, well, strange to me.
by GreatZamfir on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 07:19:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's $50 billion a year. Compared to the annual military investment budget, that's very modest.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 01:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... value to an economy with a $14trillion annual GDP.

$1 trillion spread over, say, 16 years is $62.5b/year, or 0.45% of that economy, even assuming ongoing stagnation.

Add $2.5b annually to the front years of that for the $20b in long haul transmission capacity required for 20% wind power ... it zooms up to 0.47% for the first half of that.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 04:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With the brand-new Treasury Secretary blaming China (its exchange rate policy), one wonders whether the ObamaDems will get a clue or continue business as usual.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 03:03:59 AM EST
... it has no consistency requirement.

Propounding the conventional wisdom that the US benefits from a "strong", that is importer's, exchange rate, while making the perfectly respectable argument, in mainstream economics, that China is pursuing tacit trade protection through a steeply discounted exchange rate ...

... as Geithner, new lord and master of the Transfer of Assets to Rich People largesse, seems to do ...

... uh, if a "strong dollar" is a good thing, then when China pursues a steeply discounted exchange rate, that makes the dollar "even stronger" ... how is that a bad thing?


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 02:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Geithner, who took office this week, said Jan. 22 President Barack Obama believes China is “manipulating its currency,” suggesting the new administration may take a tougher line with the biggest foreign buyer of U.S. government debt.

So how precisely do you "take a tougher line" with the guy who's bankrolling your current account deficit?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd think that it's the other guy who's got the leverage in this situation, at least until you start doing something serious about not having a current account deficit that needs to be bankrolled anymore...

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 02:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... take a tougher line, as in lines of dialog from a script ... that is, he's not talking about taking tougher actions, but only about acting like someone who's tougher.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 29th, 2009 at 04:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh. Right.

And how is belligerent posturing supposed to help again?

I must have missed that memo.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jan 30th, 2009 at 01:45:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It will impress Republican Congressman and open the way to a wonderful new era of bipartisan comity as politicians of middle and right sit down and get serious about solving the country's problems rather than playing partisan politics, creating, in effect, a centre-right to radical right government of national unity.

Just like watering down a stimulus package with corporate tax cuts with little or not multiplier impact, actually, and look what a tremendous success that was in generating broad based bipartisan support.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jan 30th, 2009 at 08:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh. Right.

Change we can believe in, indeed.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 31st, 2009 at 04:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As Jerome knows first hand, Babcock & Brown has been a meteoric player in wind power investment over the last 5 years. Here are some reflections from the tail of the meteor.

http://www.badgerd.com/bubble_and_burst.htm

 

Dbadger

by dbadger (dan.badger@gmail.com) on Tue Feb 10th, 2009 at 05:24:24 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]