Unfortunate But Not Hopeless

While other countries in the world are slowly shifting to cleaner forms of energy, the Philippines seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

The recent BMI Research of the Fitch Group noted that coal-fired power plants would dominate new energy infrastructure in the next 10 years. “Growth in the Philippines power infrastructure sector over the next 10 years will be driven by investment in coal-fired generating capacity as companies and the government build a slew of new power plants to support growing electricity demand,” according to the report.

Based on the group’s research, there is roughly 7,300 Megawatts (MW) capacity that is either under, approved or already for construction. Of these, 90 percent are coal-fired energy plants. Even the Visayas and Mindanao regions, which by the way have more renewable energy sources particularly, hydro and geothermal in their power mix, will be recipients of the future coal plants.

The report pointed out that the there is a price to pay for the country’s continued reliance on coal-fired plants.

One of the significant consequences is that the Philippines will have to keep fuel imports steady in the next five to 10 years when these power stations become operational.

“As the share of electricity generated from thermal — and especially coal — sources grows from 73% in 2017 to 77% in 2026, the Philippines will have to increase imports of fuels to feed newly built coal-fired power plants.”

There are various reasons why this report bothers me.

For one, we are lagging behind in our commitments to provide cleaner forms of energy given the amount that would be generated in the coming years from coal plants. While the rest of the world is moving away from coal, we are still stuck and depending heavily on this form of energy.

Again, I stress that I have no issues with coal plants per se, having built some of them during my time as Napocor chief. But the world and its needs have changed, and we need to get our energy from cleaner sources. Other countries are making drastic changes. China alone, the world’s biggest consumer of coal is shifting to RE by pouring some $361 billion worth of RE investments by 2020. Its government has also canceled roughly 150 coal projects from September last year to March this year.

Unfortunately, we are heading towards the opposite direction largely because our government regulations are not supportive of the growth of the RE sector. For one, we still have limited participation from foreign investors in the energy infrastructure, and as such, limited funds flow to build more RE plants.

Our regulatory environment is far from friendly for both consumers and RE producers, too.

For one, our regulators use an incorrect valuation for the beta by taking the value from the point of view of the generator than of the consumers for our floating Power Sales Agreements or PSAs. Unfortunately, our PSAs have pass through costs, which means power consumers pay end up paying for higher energy prices when the peso falls against the dollar and when coal and oil prices surge in the global market because of the value of the beta, which has a positive value.

As I have said previously, this is incorrect as the the consumers are the ones who are shouldering the cost of foreign exchange fluctuation as well as the fuel risks. Hence, the beta in our tariff setting should be a negative one to reflect the risks borne by consumers for both the foreign currency adjustments and world prices of oil and coal.

Plus, I have discussed in an old blog post, our regulators place an arbitrary value on the beta when it comes to cost recovery in our tariff setting. For example, a geothermal plant and coal-fired power plant will have the same beta value. This is faulty because the developer of a geothermal power plant takes more risks given the exploration cost than the coal-fired power plant developer. The incorrect application of the core concept of the capital asset portfolio model is detrimental to the development of renewables.

 

IMG_0015.JPG

Coal-fired plants must be a thing of the past. Renewable Energy is the future. 

 

Again, at the risk of sounding like a parrot, our energy planner belongs to the school of thought that coal-plants are cheaper the RE ones. These planners only look at the upfront cost of building power plants rather than scrutinize the risks that consumers shoulder when relying significantly on fossil fuels.

I have repeatedly pointed out that traditional sources of energy are not necessarily cheaper as we could end up paying more given our heavy dependence on imported coal. Even the above report of BMI stressed that we are importing 70 percent of our coal needs from neighbors. So, what happens when coal prices increase? What happens if importation becomes more expensive due to various factors? We have been in this situation before where our power rates have increased because getting coal abroad has become difficult.

Sadly, it is the Filipinos who are screwed with such flawed thinking as the ordinary Pinoy consumer pays for these upward price adjustments. We do, after all, have the pass-on provisions where customers pay for price fluctuation.

We have been suffering from high power rates for several decades now. And as I have been discussing in quite some posts, the key to solving high electricity prices is to one, have more renewable energy in our mix and second to have fixed-price contracts for our PSAs.

Our best bet to lower power prices is to have more RE in our energy mix. RE will be a cheaper alternative as many experts have stressed that the prices of RE technologies will continue to fall.

Regrettably, it seems unlikely that our country will shift to more cleaner form of energy soon. Understandably, moving to cleaner energy will not happen over night.

In the meantime, we must find ways to mitigate the consequences of relying heavily on coal-fired plants. I stand firm on my position that we need a greater share of renewables. But we must, at the very least, consider having fixed-priced contracts where we use a risk-free rate, the negative beta as I have mentioned above in the discount rate in computing for the tariff (reasons for this are in an in-depth discussion in my previous post.)

RE sources are in the best to position to give out these fixed-priced contracts, which do not pass-on the costs to consumers. These contracts will not burden consumers by making them pay for price fluctuation of coal importation costs since there are no import costs of raw materials in RE production.

Yes, we do need more infrastructure, particularly more power plants as our economy develops. But we must also pay attention to the welfare of ordinary Filipinos as we build for our future. Heavy reliance on coal-fired plants will be detrimental to our families as they shell out more money to pay their electric bills. I implore our energy planners to map out and scrutinize all options available as we try to meet our increasing demands for energy.

Reference:
http://beta.bworldonline.com/bmi-coal-remain-primary-power-source/

 

Empowering Small Islands

Ta'u Island

The island of Ta’u in American Samoa now running  on 100% on solar energy. Photo c/o wired.co.uk

It is indeed possible to shift from diesel dependence to renewable energy sources. Such is what happened to two islands in other regions.

The island of Ta’u in American Samoa recently made the headlines as the island was able to shift 100 percent from diesel to solar power. The Ta’u is a small island with somewhere between 200 to 600 residents depending on the season.

Last November, the island was able to go 100% renewable after Elon Musk-owned SolarCity finished the installation of some 5,328 solar panels that can generate 1.410 megawatts (MW) and 60 Tesla large batteries that can energize the island for three straight days without sunlight.

Similarly, news items also carried the accomplishment of Tilos, a small island in Greece, which is it set to become the first island in the Mediterranean to run on solar and wind energy.  Installation of a small photovoltaic park and a single wind turbine and micro-grid for generation and storage is on-going and is expected to change the lives of some 500 residents.

Currently, the island still relies on the oil-based electricity from its neighbor, Kos through the use of a submarine cable. Due to the vulnerability of the cable, power cuts in Tilos happen often.  Project proponents are hopeful that eventually, it will be Tilos that would be able to send some of its excess power to its neighbor Kos because of its shift to renewable.

These stories only prove that the shift to cleaner energy in small islands is indeed possible. There then is still hope for our off-grid islands to end their reliance on diesel and instead use renewable sources for their energy needs.

The Philippines, being an archipelagic country will benefit from looking at the above islands and working double time to power our off-grid islands with renewable sources.

A study by the Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC) has already discussed the economic benefits of using RE to supply the electricity needs in off-grid areas.

To quote the study, “Small island grids powered by solar, wind, and other renewable energy can reduce dependence on expensive imported fossil fuel generation without compromising the availability of power and grid reliability.”

Indeed, the benefits of using renewables, especially in these off-grid islands should not be ignored.

According to the report, “Electricity-Sector Opportunities in the Philippines: The Case for Wind- and Solar-Powered Small Island Grids¬” the Philippines can save as much as P10 billion a year if renewables are used instead of diesel.  This is because 80 percent of the operating costs of power generation in these islands are spent on diesel costs. And as I have pointed out in several posts, reliance on fossil fuels is costly due to oil price spikes.

Research by Professor Shimon Awerbuch, a big advocate for portfolio theory revealed that the oil price spikes from years 2000 to 2004 cost the European Union some €700 billion given the region’s reliance then on oil-powered plants.

Unfortunately, our regulators have been slow in crafting policies that would pave the way for greater renewable energy use in these areas.

The study by the IEEFA and ICSC stressed that there are no incentives for island electric cooperatives to purchase cheaper energy sources given the present system where franchise ratepayers do not benefit from the cost savings as these go exclusively to the missionary fund. Both the Energy Regulatory Commission and National Electrification Administration yet have to change the tariff setting system to encourage electric coops in islands to increase their efficiency and lower their costs.

This is unfortunate. We, after all, have the resources to make the shift to renewable energy. In fact, our country can generate as much as 161.7 watts per square meter given that the Philippines is one of the sunniest countries. But we need to re-think and change our policies and regulations that hinder us from using these resources.

There is a pressing need to review our regulations to address the needs of our citizens in the islands. Hopefully, supportive policies and regulations will help us make better use of resources just like what the islands Ta’u and Tilos have done.

References:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/tau-american-samoa-solar-power-microgrid-tesla-solarcity/

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jun/15/tilos-greece-renewable-energy-wind-solar-power

Electricity-Sector Opportunities in the Philippines: The Case for Wind- and Solar-Powered Small Island Grids

“Green is Gold: How renewable energy can save us money and generate jobs”. Greenpeace for NREL figures

Faster Than Expected

Some experts are expecting that solar will eventually take over as the king of the energy mix. And it may come sooner than anticipated. Soon,  solar power, as well as renewable energy (RE), will dominate the power basket according to a Bloomberg New Finance outlook released last June.

The solar photo voltaic panels cost for one is expected to drop by 66 percent by the year 2040 while onshore wind power will dip by 47 percent after 2040.

The report noted that solar costs are now already just one-fourth of its prices in 2009 while onshore wind has seen a 30 percent decrease in the last eight years. Off shore wind prices are also expected to drop by 71 percent, making this RE technology more attractive.

Presently, solar costs are already comparable to new coal power plants in the United States and Germany. By 2021, the same will happen to emerging markets like India and China. By 2020s, both countries are expected to have lower power prices with the countries’ aggressive investments in solar energy. The BNEF report noted that close to 39 percent or some $4 trillion of RE investments of the world are to be poured in China and India.

“These tipping points are all happening earlier, and we just can’t deny that this technology is getting cheaper than we previously thought,” said Seb Henbest, the lead author of the BNEF research.

Due to the falling costs of the two technologies, the BNEF outlook stressed that in 2040, solar and wind power combined will account for close to half of the world’s installed generation capacity, more than four times the current 12 percent share.

Naturally, the greater share of these renewable sources will displace coal and natural gas plants. The estimate showed that roughly 369 gigawatts (GW) of coal plants projects would likely be canceled, an amount that’s equivalent to the combined generation capacity of Brazil and Germany.

IMG_0005.JPG

At present, solar costs are already comparable to new coal power plants in the U.S. and Germany

Even the United States where President Trump signed an executive order to “start a new era of production and job creation” especially in the coal sector, will see coal capacity drop by half in 2040.

Europe’s coal capacity is also expected to slide by 71 percent given the region’s environmental laws that will make fuel burning cost more.

The new king of the renewable mix is indeed coming.

Unfortunately, for us Filipinos, we still yet have to see a dramatic increase in the renewables’ share in our power mix. While India, has already embraced technology and the benefits that a nation can reap from harnessing its resources properly, our country has remained in the same position for years. In the last two years, the share of renewables— solar and wind combined– only accounts for one percent.

As I have been saying, our energy planners remain fixed in their incorrect thinking about how expensive RE is. While the rest of the world have been sensitive to the development of the RE sector, we still insist on having our ‘quick fixes.’ We favor the least cost in terms of capital outlay for power plants but refuse to look at the additional cost that consumers will shoulder for our heavy dependence on fossil fuels.

We only need to look at the devastating impact on energy prices from history to see the risks of relying heavily on either coal or oil plants. In the 1990s, the Gulf War, for example, brought roughly 30 percent increase in the average spot price for crude oil.  According to the average unit price of crude oil increase in the country was approximately 56.1 percent.

We don’t even have to go as far as the 1990s. Just last year, our Energy Department officials warned of a possible disaster with the news that Indonesia has extended its imposed moratorium on coal exports to the Philippines due to the kidnapping of several Indonesian sailors in the Sulu sea by the Abu Sayaff.  We, after all, get 70 percent of our coal or 15 million tons for 2015 from Indonesia. A few years before that, Indonesia also changed its rules about coal exports which led to an even higher cost of generating power from coal.

A necessary consequence to all these is this: coal and other similar fossil fuel-based technologies will increasingly have difficulties in getting financing. Not only because financial institutions will institute policies to avoid fossil fuel technologies, but if at all, banks will have to shorten the tenors it will give to coal plants. Because of the expected decline in costs of RE technologies, the competitiveness of coal plants will increasingly decline.  Therefore, banks will have to lend, if at all, at much shorter maturities.  With shorter maturities come higher annuities.  This will make financing coal plants extremely difficult and uncompetitive.

All these points to one thing: Let us be like other countries, like our Asian neighbors India and China that have embraced and capitalized on developments of the RE. And part of it is welcoming fixed contracts in our energy mix to take advantage of the falling prices of RE technologies and having the maximum levels allowed in our Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), where power players are required to either source or produce a specified percentage from RE

Given that our Power Sales Agreements (PSAs) are ‘floating’ where risks such as price escalations of fossil fuel and foreign exchange rates are passed on to consumers, we need to have our fixed priced contracts to at the very least soften the blow on the negative impact of the ‘pass-on costs.’ Fortunately, renewables are in a good position to hand out those much needed fixed contracts.

While the rest of the world are embracing the lower costs of RE generation, we are still stuck in the old ways of thinking that fossil fuels and fixed price contracts are the correct formulae to our power rates woes.  Let us see the economic sense in investing and helping renewable energy flourish in our rich country.

If we want to maximize our abundance of RE sources in the country, which as many have said is the key to lower energy prices, then we must consider those fixed priced contracts for RE. And if we want to truly embrace and benefit from the falling costs of RE technologies such as what the recent BNFF report has noted, then we must be quick in adopting my above proposals. Otherwise, we will be left wondering years from now how and why we failed to find a solution to what seems to be never ending high electricity prices in the country, when in fact, the answer had been quite obvious.

References:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/solar-power-will-kill-coal-sooner-than-you-think

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/06/27/1597092/philippine-power-supply-jeopardized-indonesian-ban

Oil Price Shocks and Devefoping Countries: A Case Study of the Gulf Crisis by Sarah Ahmad Khan

The Cost of Being Outdated

Numerous studies reveal the benefits of shifting to more renewable energy. These research papers debunk the myth that RE is more expensive and rather stresses that in the long-run, greener forms of energy may be cheaper if one is to consider many factors including cost of oil importation and effects on health and environment, to name a few.

One such study is the recently released “Electricity-Sector Opportunities in the Philippines: The Case for Wind- and Solar-Powered Small Island Grids¬” by the Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) and Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC).

According to the report, the Philippines is likely to save more than P10 billion annually if we are to replace diesel-fired power plants with renewables in off-grid islands or areas that are not connected to the grid.

For these off-grid islands, energy is provided by the small power utilities group or SPUG under the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) or by Independent Power Producers (IPPs). According to the report, there are 310 SPUG and IPPs combined with a total dependable capacity of 267 MW with mini-grids that uses oil-powered plants. The cost of generating electricity in these islands are subsidized under the Universal Charge for Missionary Electrification (UCME) of NAPOCOR where fuel costs account for 75% of the NPC-SPUG cost of power generation.

The reliance on oil for energy needs comes at a significant cost as fuel account for 75% of the NPC-SPUG cost of power generation. The cost of generating electricity in these islands are subsidized under the Universal Charge for Missionary Electrification (UCME). The researchers point out that P60 billion are spent on subsidies even if these areas only generate 0.49% of the overall generated power in the country and 6% of the total energy demand.

With the falling costs of RE technologies, the study noted that great savings can be made A swift transition to RE for these off-grid islands is possible says the researchers, except the country’s policies and regulations, are outdated: “Barriers to small island grid uptake of modern renewable energy power include outdated regulations that have not kept up with technology.”

The researchers emphasized that the present system fails to provide incentives to buy cheaper sources of power, which unfortunately causes the slow the shift towards RE in these areas “This system tends to be biased against renewable generation because franchise managers would rather stick with diesel generation they are used to, even though more expensive.”

The authors recommend for the Energy Department to provide incentives to the SPUG to hybridize their power plants as well as for the National Electrification Administration (NEA) to order electricity cooperatives to be neutral in their purchase of energy. After all, the researchers concluded that “Small island grids powered by solar, wind, and other renewable energy can reduce dependence on expensive imported fossil fuel generation without compromising availability of power and grid reliability.”

In a previous post, I have tackled the problem of energy poverty as some 1.2 billion individuals are without electricity. Unfortunately, our country is suffering, too from the lack of access to power.  We are in fact being left behind in terms of electrification in the region.

hybrid thailand

Photo c/o http://www.thai-german-cooperation.info

The Philippines is almost at the bottom of the list in South East Asia when we talk about national electrification rate which is at 79% while our neighbors such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei have already achieved 100%. Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Indonesia have impressive numbers at 99%, 97%, 87%, and 81%, respectively. We are at the bottom three along with Cambodia and Myanmar.

Indeed, there is a need to hasten in reviewing our policies to catch up with our needs especially since we are aiming for more inclusive growth.

The big picture is actually very simple: The Philippines should exploit and encourage the development of all renewable energy resources for the simple reason that: a) no need for fuel importation and thus saving foreign exchange; b) the Philippine economy will be shielded from wild swings in the global energy markets; and c) electricity prices will be stable over the long-term.

Clearly, falling prices of renewable energy aren’t enough for a major shift towards renewable energy. A problematic regulatory system must be addressed if we want cleaner and cheaper sources of energy.

The lack of foresight, willpower and competence can be a bane for the growth of any sector. And our power sector is one of those that stands to gain if only regulators competently enact changes needed to help our country develop.

References:

Electricity-Sector Opportunities in the Philippines: The Case for Wind- and Solar-Powered Small Island Grids

World Economic Outlook 2015 data base. International Energy Agency http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment

We Pay Higher With A Weaker Peso

pexels-photo-164560

The Philippine Peso has been falling against the greenback in the last few weeks. Tagged by Bloomberg as Asia’s worst performing currency, our currency has lost 1.6 percent this year. Bloomberg also noted that the Philippine peso is also the worst performer among emerging markets, only next to the Argentina Peso.

Both forecasts by DBS Bank and Bloomberg also predict that the exchange rate would be P52 to a dollar by year-end, In fact, according to DBS Bank, the weak peso could continue until middle of next year.

The weakening of the peso is a result of various factors. Unfortunately, a shrinking peso against the dollar is detrimental to normal Filipinos if we are talking about their power rates. The falling peso could spell doom for many Filipinos, mainly because the lower peso would increase power prices.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, our Power Sales Agreements or PSAs have the provision for the pass-on costs where the consumers pay for the foreign exchange and fossil fuel upward price adjustments. To put it simply, the consumers will pay for the weak peso in their electric bills.

Remember December last year where the biggest power distributor announced a P0.1011 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) increase because of the upward adjustment in the generation charge caused by the significant weakening of the peso against the dollar. A news report then noted that the peso slid down to P49.73 in November from P46.59 to a dollar from August of the same year. That’s almost a three peso difference in three months, which resulted in the increased electricity bill. We have to keep in mind that the largest DU in the country sources its electricity from independent power producers, which, unfortunately, have 90 percent of their billings in dollar denomination.

As I have discussed in detail, our energy planners have favored the ‘floating’ PSAs rather than fixed ones, thinking that it is cheaper. To simplify, these floating PSAs are not necessarily more inexpensive as there are unknowns specifically fossil fuel global price spikes and falling value of the peso against the dollar. These unknowns are, sadly, inevitable.

As with our experience last year in the above example, a weaker peso resulted in higher power prices. So, we cannot say that floating PSAs are cheaper because, in the end, the poor consumers will shell out more money when the inevitable happens.

This is why we need the fixed priced contracts. Under fixed priced contracts, consumers will pay the same amount for a specified period, let us say, 25 years, for their electricity. Fixed price contracts eliminate the need for users to pay for the pass-on costs or to simplify, pay for higher power charges when the peso falls against the dollar or when prices of coal or oil in the international market increases. I’m sure our consumers would appreciate knowing how much they would be paying for their energy consumption on a monthly basis rather than be surprised when their electric bills come.

Let us see the economic sense in having fixed price contracts for the sake of the end consumers. Rather than just fret on how a weak peso could hurt us, let us make the adjustments needed to ease the burden for the Filipinos who will shoulder the cost of the falling peso when they for pay their electricity. Surely, Filipinos have other uses for their hard-earned money.

Let’s Not Forget Wind and Natural Gas

So much has been said about the potential of renewable energy especially on solar power in the news lately. But there’s another renewable energy source that could significantly help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions: Wind Energy.

Similar to other renewable energy source, wind power does not emit greenhouse gas emissions, and of course, the resource is free.

But this form of energy has one advantage over other renewable sources: its low carbon foot print. According to energy specialist James Conca wind energy has the smallest carbon footprint (along with Nuclear), only emitting 15 grams per kilowatt hour (kWh). Its emissions are largely from the manufacturing, installation and the maintenance of the wind turbines.

Development in solar energy has overshadowed the good news about wind power. But we should also take note of the progress wind energy has made.

In 2016, a total of 54.6 gigawatts (GW) was installed globally, bringing the world’s total installed wind capacity at 487 GW according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). China alone has installed 23.3 GW of wind power last year, and now has the largest share of wind power in the world with 42.7%. US also added more wind energy last year after installing a total of 8.2 GW.

Analysts at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance notes that “wind is now one of the main workhorses in power markets around the world.” And the BNEF predicts that wind power’s growth will continue as some 59 GW will be commissioned this 2017, beating the additional installed capacity in 2016.

Apparently, wind power’s potential must not be ignored.

In the Philippines, the World Wide Fund notes that our grid can accommodate up to 500 MW of wind power without hurting the grid. Plus, there are new technologies, which could make the Philippines a leader at least in the South East Asia (SEA) for wind power.  While we have as much wind as our neighbor countries, the Philippines’ is friendlier to the generation sector, particularly on research and development compared to other SEA countries. Our restrictions on connecting to the grid are much less.

However, our government should be more supportive of the feed-in tariff for wind energy because, without it, development of wind power could be stunted. That’s a shame because developing this renewable source could help us shift faster to cleaner energy just like in the cases of other countries.

Last year, the wind power in the United King made waves as it generated more electricity than coal. This is a first in the country’s history.  Coal power generation in the UK declined from 22.6 percent of the country’s overall energy mix in 2015 to 9.2 percent in 2016 with the shutdown of three major coal power plants.

Just last February, Denmark was able to generate sufficient energy from the wind to supply the power needs of the entire country.  WindEurope reported that the country produced a total of 97 GW from wind, with onshore wind providing 70 GW and offshore wind at 27 GW. The volume generated was enough to supply to some 10 million average households in the European Union.

wind_turbines_denmark

Wind turbines off of Skovshoved, Denmark. Photo c/o http://www.euractiv.com/

As of 2015, wind energy combined with solar only accounted for less than 0.1 percent of the Philippines’ energy mix. There is obviously more room for wind power just like with other renewable sources if we want to meet the country’s goal of cutting our emissions by 70 percent by the year 2030.  And the best way to move forward in achieving our committed emissions is to shift our dependence on fossil fuels to liquefied natural gas or LNG for our ancillary needs.

Wind and solar energy are intermittent sources of energy. Thus, we need to beef up on our ancillary services to maintain the correct direction and flow of power as well as to address the imbalance on the supply and demand on the grid. Currently, we rely on traditional sources of energy for the security of our grid, which unfortunately, creates havoc in our environment and health.

On the other hand, natural gas is less harmful to the environment since its main component, methane, results in lesser carbon emission. Its carbon dioxide emissions are 30 percent less than oil and 45 percent lesser than other conventional fuels. Natural gas also produces less sulfur dioxide and nitrogen, which are precursors of acid rain and smog, respectively.

The benefits of depending on LNG rather than coal are undeniable. In fact, a study conducted by researchers at the University of Texas shows that natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost technology choice for power generation in the United States when cost, environmental effects and impact on public health are taken into consideration.

In the last two years, natural gas accounted for some 15 to 16% of our energy needs while coal dominated our power mix at 32 %. If we are committed to reducing our carbon emissions and saving our environment, then we should work harder in shifting away from coal and instead look at natural gas, solar and wind as viable options.

References:

https://about.bnef.com/blog/10-renewable-energy-predictions-2017/

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/china-and-us-lead-way-with-wind-power-installations-says-global-energy-report.html

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/24/denmark-generated-enough-wind-energy-power-power-needs-wednesday/

http://www.wwf.org.ph/stories/rp-grid-can-accommodate-500-mw-additional-wind

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/06/uk-wind-power-coal-green-groups-carbon-taxes

https://news.utexas.edu/2016/12/08/natural-gas-and-wind-are-the-lowest-cost-for-much-of-us

 

Ignoring the Numbers

Just recently, United States President, Donald Trump signed an executive order, which mainly seeks to overturn his predecessor, Barrack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

To recall, then President Obama announced the Clean Power Plan in August 2015 in response to the growing clamor to address climate change. The Plan’s primary objective is to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently issued the Carbon Pollution Standards, the first U.S. national standard on pollution.

Trump’s EO will trigger the review of the US Clean Power Plan and carbon standards for new coal plants. News reports, however, note, that it is unclear if the US will keep its commitment to made in COP 21 agreement to keep the world’s average temperature below two centigrade above pre-industrial levels.

Reports also quoted Trump as saying that his order is about “ending the theft of prosperity” as the signing of the EO will “start a new era of production and job creation,” particularly in the coal and mining sector.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that the new US President is ignoring the actions and calls of the global community to work double time to mitigate the effects of climate change. After all, he has promised to bring coal mining jobs back while dismissing climate change as “a hoax created by the Chinese” during his presidential bid.

More details are yet to be released on the full impact of this new executive order. But as early as now, environmental activists are already criticizing Trump for going backward on the progress already made by the US in fighting climate change. The U.S, once considered as the leading country in the world’s quest for a cleaner and greener world is now seemingly going backward.

I also join the many others who question Trump’s move in signing such an E.O. as Trump seemed to have ignored that cleaner forms of energy, do generate jobs. Many jobs in fact.

Weeks before Trump signed his controversial order, the US Department of Energy (DOE) released a report showing the contribution of the renewable energy (DOE) sector in jobs creation in the country.

The US, Energy and Employment Report revealed that solar power employs the most workers in the US Electric Power generation industry with wind energy is the third biggest. Solar alone provided work for 43 percent of the sector’s employees with 374,000 individuals from 2015 to 2016. In contrast, traditional fossil fuels all together just hired 22 percent of the workforce at 187, 117 for the same period. Coal’s job figures have been on the decline for the past decade the report stressed.

And renewables’ contribution to the additional employment in the power sector is not to be ignored either. The Energy Sector’s contribution to the overall job generation is significant as it accounts for some additional 300,000 jobs, which is 14 percent of the US job growth in 2016.

Plus, RE’s job growth is significant as it increased by 25 percent, creating a total of 73,000 new jobs last year.  Wind power employment alone grew by 32 percent.

The growth of the renewables has been significant in the past decade as more energy are generated from these sources the report stressed: “The electric generation mix in the United States is changing, driven by the transition of coal-fired power plants to natural gas and the increase in low-carbon sources of energy.”

The study pointed out that generation from coal sources has dropped by 53 percent from 2006 to September 2016 while solar power alone has increased by 5000 percent in the same period.

And with the stellar growth of cleaner energy, jobs are still created.

“These shifts in electric generation source are mirrored in the sector’s changing employment profile, as the share of natural gas, solar, and wind workers increases, while coal mining and other related employment is declining.”

china-solar-energy

Solar alone provided work for 43 percent of the sector’s employees with 374,000 from 2015-2016.  Photo c/o http://www.zmescience.com

Trump stressed during the signing of the report that the main thrust of the EO was to protect American jobs. But apparently, the above numbers released by the U.S. DOE shows that adding cleaner forms of energy in the mix does not necessarily translate into the loss of jobs. Renewable power generation also requires manpower.

The US DOE study isn’t the only one that talks about job generation in the RE sector. Earlier studies have already established that increasing investments in renewables will generate employment.

Research by the University of California, Berkeley has shown that “photovoltaic technology produces more jobs per unit of electricity than any other energy source. Most of the jobs are in construction and installation of solar facilities and can’t be outsourced to other countries.”

Similarly, the report of the University of Massachusetts, “The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy in the US” stressed that a total of $150 billion of investments in clean energy would produce some 2.5 new million jobs.

Inevitably, these numbers point to one thing: Clean energy generates jobs. Choosing cleaner forms of energy does not come at the expense of the workers. On the contrary, more employment opportunities are available as we grow the RE sector.

Industry experts are bewildered on how Trump will deliver his promise of bringing more jobs to the coal industry.  Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, says that it is impossible to bring back coal jobs. “There isn’t a lot of investment activity because in some cases it looks more economically attractive for firms to invest in cleaner technologies.”

Additionally, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis or IEEFA, in its 2017 U.S. Coal Outlook stressed that job losses would continue for coal industry as companies will continue to use fewer workers in the future: Promises to create more coal jobs will not be kept — indeed the industry will continue to cut payrolls.”

Plus, the IEEFA sees that natural gas will soon replace coal, which makes it almost impossible to for Trump to achieve his goal: “Trump’s false promise that he can bring back coal is really exposed as so much coal dust and mirrors by this executive order, since utilities will continue to use natural gas instead of coal.”

Sadly, the US President didn’t look at these numbers nor listened to industry experts.

References:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy-idUSKBN16Z1L6

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-coal-mining-jobs-promise-experts-disagree-executive-order-a7656486.html

Green is Gold: How renewable energy can save us money and generate jobs”. Greenpeace

Note: UCLA Berkeley & University of Massachusetts studies are cited from the Greenpeace report.