The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand

Al Gore has made a major speech in Washington this morning, setting out an ambitious goal for the USA to produce all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2020. I thought I'd comment on the technical feasibility of the plan, and the underlying economics of such an endeavour.

from the Department of Energy's recently published study about bringing wind power to 20% of total generation

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.

Disclosure (or reminder): I am an investment banker for the energy sector. I do a lot of work with the wind sector, as the posts in my wind power series attest, but not only. Whether a pipeline or a wind farm, the job of a project financier is to ensure that the projects make sense for all interested parties (including the regulator) in the long run, and wind projects have to meet the same hurdles as other power plants or oil fields. Thus I'm supposed to remain level-headed when discussing wind projects!

First, thanks to all who contributed ideas. You may have an entirely different opinion on the most important energy stories. Feel free to share it. Many of these stories were contributed by various readers. Comments by readers are italicized. If you want to know who wrote what, you can see the entire comment thread here.

Click "There's More" to see my Top 10 Energy Stories of 2007:

Earlier this Summer, New Jersey passed landmark, ground-breaking legislation that will put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions to bring emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.

The bill’s implementation is in the hands of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The department, in conjunction with other state agencies, must develop a pollution monitoring and reporting program by January 2009, a plan to achieve the 2020 limit by no later than June 2008, and a plan to achieve the 2050 limit no later than June 2010. Solutions to cut pollution levels are expected to focus on reducing the state’s energy consumption and shifting to clean, renewable sources of energy in the transportation and electricity sectors – the two largest sources of global warming pollution in the state.

This is not just because some legislators got a good idea in their head and moved forward on their own. But rather this is the outcome of a concerted effort by a coalition of the state's environmental groups called the NJ Climate Change March as part of the larger Step It Up 2007 campaign led by Bill McKibben to force the legislature's hand on the last day of their session. As Mr. McKibben said at a lecture I attended a couple of months ago: "Politicians are like windvanes...it's up to us to make the wind blow."

From the video above it is clear that this is not just about New Jersey taking responsibility and action in it's own backyard, but this is squarely aimed at impacting policy at the national level and ultimately the global agenda. Without a clear national plan to reduce CO2 levels, it seems that more cities and states will join up and take action.

Those looking at the tags before they read this may think I'm insane for putting those first two names in the same post, but I can assure you that I am not.

First, check out our new ad (left side) from BarackObama.com, which takes you to Obama's Senate webpage and a discussion of FERA '06.

Second, Andrew Sullivan finally saw An Inconvenient Truth. His reaction? He recommends it and re-joins the cacophony calling for a large increase in the gas tax, as well as greater R&D&I.

(Of course, Sully also gets in the relatively long line of people taking shots at Al Gore and his attempt to pull a "political Madonna," which also seems to be prevalent in the 'sphere as well. C'mon folks, he invented teh internets!)