On the heels of clean fuel milestones in Germany and Portugal , a new report finds that the renewable energy industry employed over 8.1 million people worldwide in 2015.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency’s (IRENA) annual review, that figure marks a 5% increase from the previous year. China led the pack, accounting for 3.5 million jobs. Brazil and U.S. ranked second and third, respectively, for the highest number of renewable energy jobs.

The solar photovoltaic (PV) sector shot up 11% and accounted for biggest number of jobs at 2.8 million globally.

In the U.S. alone, solar grew nearly 22%.  That’s “12 times faster than job creation in the US economy­—surpassing jobs in oil and gas,” the report states. The other country seeing growth in solar was Japan, which notched a 28% increase in solar PV employment in 2014.

Wind saw “a record year” in employment, the report states. Wind energy employment in the U.S. grew 21%; worldwide it grew 5%. At the same time, oil and gas extraction jobs fell by 18 percent in the U.S.

“This increase is being driven by declining renewable energy technology costs and enabling policy frameworks,” stated IRENA Director-General Adnan Z. Amin. “We expect this trend to continue as the business case for renewables strengthens and as countries move to achieve their climate targets agreed in Paris,” he added, referring to the UN climate deal sealed at the end of 2015.

Mark Kenber, CEO of The Climate Group, an organization that advocates for reining in carbon emissions, added, “A clean revolution is key to growth, investment, jobs, health, security: there is no high-carbon prosperous future.”

The new review follows a separate brief released (pdf) by IRENA on “the true costs of of fossil fuels,” which found that doubling the global share of renewables by 2030 would save not only $4.2 trillion annually but also as many as 4 million lives.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

The first harvest of 34 acres of fast-growing shrub willow from a Penn State demonstration field this winter is a milestone in developing a sustainable biomass supply for renewable energy and bio-based economic development, according to researchers in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences.

The shrub willow stand at the Penn State Rockview site can continue producing biomass for more than 20 years. Photo: Penn State

The shrub willow plantation is part of a broader five-year program called NEWBio, which is aimed at investigating and promoting sustainable production of woody biomass and warmseason grasses for energy in the Northeast. Planted in 2012 on land formerly owned by the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, the biomass crop will regrow and will be harvested every three years from now on.

NEWBio, a regional consortium of institutions lead by Penn State and funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, is one of seven regional projects across the United States. Other consortium partners are Cornell University, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, West Virginia University, Delaware State University, Ohio State University, Rutgers University, USDA’s Eastern Regional Research Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Idaho National Laboratory.

Researchers involved in the project include plant scientists, agricultural and biological engineers, agricultural safety and health specialists, agronomists, agricultural and forest economists, rural sociologists, supply-chain and business-development experts, and extension educators.

“The shrub willow stand at Rockview can continue producing biomass for more than 20 years, and we hope to use it both as a source of renewable energy and as a platform for sustainability research,” said Armen Kemanian, associate professor of production systems and modeling in the Department of Plant Science, one of the lead researchers in the project.

“This is an excellent site to investigate impacts on soil and water quality, biodiversity, avoided carbon dioxide emissions, and the potential for growing a regional bio-based economy,” he said. “Students from our college visit the site and have a firsthand and close-up view of this new crop for the region.”

Why shrub willow? Because the woody perennial likes to be cut, explained Kemanian. He noted that visitors to Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming may remember the “willow flats,” grazed to a uniform height by moose and elk.

“At the Rockview site we don’t have moose, but we do take advantage of shrub willow’s vigorous regrowth to harvest for multiple cycles,” he said. “As perennial plants, they establish a root system that stabilizes the soil and stores substantial amounts of carbon that otherwise would be lost to the atmosphere.”

Perennial biomass crops shrub willow, switchgrass and miscanthus — all of which are being investigated at other experimental sites around the Northeast — also store and recycle nutrients, so they do not require much fertilizer and can improve water quality in streams, rivers and estuaries, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Increasing perennial vegetation is a critical component of Pennsylvania’s water quality strategy, and these biomass crops allow vulnerable parts of the landscape to remain economically productive while protecting water quality.

Shrub willow can produce the same amount of biomass as a corn crop with only a third of the nitrogen fertilizer, Kemanian pointed out. When the plants grow, they take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. After harvest, when the biomass is combusted either as wood chips or as a liquid biofuel, the carbon dioxide returns to the atmosphere to complete the cycle.

Felipe Montes, a research associate in the Department of Plant Science, established an array of sensors to measure carbon dioxide and water vapor fluxes, which are giving a vivid picture of the growth potential in the region. Shrub willow is one the first plants to leaf out in early spring and dies back late in the fall, and this long growing season makes it extremely efficient in converting sunlight and nutrients to a bioenergy feedstock.

“We estimate that we can harvest 20 to 30 units of energy per unit of fossil energy invested in producing the crop, leading to fuel with a very low carbon footprint,” Montes said. “The fact that this biomass can be converted to liquid fuel is one of the main advantages of shrub willow and other biomass crops. Low carbon liquid fuels are especially important for long distance transportation, shipping and aviation, where electric vehicles are not practical.”

Biomass energy could provide the social, economic and ecological drivers for a sustainable rural renaissance in the Northeast, according to NEWBio project leader Tom Richard, professor of agricultural and biological engineering and director of the Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment. He believes perennial energy crops are particularly well suited for the region, where forests and pasture long have dominated the landscape.

Rocky and sloped soils are more compatible with perennial crops, while perennial root systems better tolerate wet springs and occasional summer drought, Richard said. Northeast biomass production has high water-use efficiency (biomass produced per unit of water transpired by plants) owing to the region’s moderate temperatures and relatively high humidity. These perennial crops also increase organic matter in the soil, and coupled with efficient refining and manufacturing processes can produce carbon-negative energy and materials.

“Concerns about energy, environmental and human health, rural economic development, and the need to diversify agricultural products and markets have made the development of sustainably produced biomass feedstocks for biofuels, bioproducts and bioenergy a critical national priority,” said Richard.

“Perennial bioenergy systems, such as the shrub willow demonstrated at Penn State, appear to hold an important key to future economic development for our region. But to unlock that future, we need to learn how to economically handle the harvesting, transportation and storage of massive volumes, which constitutes 40 to 60 percent of the cost of biomass. This project is providing the knowledge and experience needed for a regional bioeconomy to achieve commercial success.”

Critics of biofuels like ethanol argue they are an unsustainable use of land. But with careful management, next-generation grass-based biofuels can net climate savings and improve their ecosystems.

Miscanthus and switchgrass, two perennial grasses that could be used for biofuels, grow in front of a corn crib. Photo: Evan DeLucia

As the world seeks strategies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere, bioenergy is one promising substitute for fossil fuels [Somerville et al., 2010]. Currently, the United States uses the starch component from roughly 40% of its corn harvest to produce ethanol for the transportation sector (see the National Agricultural Statistics Service website).

Cornstarch production is technologically simple—a so-called first-generation bioenergy technology. However, growing corn requires a lot of fertilizer and field preparation that ultimately depend on fossil fuels, tempering the net carbon savings.

Because of this, researchers have focused on developing fuel production using more advanced methods and second-generation bioenergy crops. These methods make liquid fuel, primarily ethanol, from lignocellulose, which composes the structural elements of plants, leaves, stalks, and stems. Because many of these crops are perennials (they grow back year after year), they often require less fertilizer and tillage, avoiding many of the negatives associated with corn and other annual crops that need intensive management.

A challenge with second-generation energy crops, however, is that they yield much less energy—lignocellulose produces less than one third of the energy per unit mass compared to fossil fuels. Because of this low energy density, the United States would need to invest a considerable amount of land to meet a significant part of national demand, a land area almost the size of Wisconsin to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard mandate for 32 billion gallons of biofuel [Hudiburg et al., 2015].

The conversion of current land uses and management practices to the cultivation of bioenergy crops directly affects the climate system and is a fundamental process underlying the ecological sustainability of bioenergy production, as well as the ability of bioenergy crops to mitigate climate change. Where conversion of native prairie to corn negatively affects climate by releasing CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, planting second-generation grass-based biofuel crops on marginal or degraded land can reduce our carbon footprint and provide other beneficial ecosystem services.

Changing the Landscape Changes Our Climate

Public discussion of climate change often focuses on the atmosphere. As greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane accumulate in the atmosphere, they warm the planet by absorbing infrared radiation. But that’s not the whole picture: those greenhouse gases are also constantly cycling between the atmosphere and the land (Figure 1). Therefore, changes in land use, vegetation, and how we manage it affect climate by altering that exchange.

Fig. 1. Terrestrial ecosystems affect the climate system by influencing the exchange of greenhouse gases between the land surface and the atmosphere (biogeochemical regulation) and by influencing the exchange of energy (evapotranspiration and albedo) with the atmosphere (biophysical regulation). Biogeochemical processes affect the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, influencing global climate on decadal time scales or longer, whereas biophysical processes cause local cooling or warming over days and months. Credit: Evan DeLucia

The metabolisms of plants and soil microbes help to regulate the exchange of GHGs with the atmosphere, as these molecules or their precursors are stored in biomass and soil. Clearing a native forest, for example, releases large quantities of carbon stored in biomass and soil to the atmosphere (“storage”; Figure 2). Indeed, creating and managing farmland contribute more than 14% of the world’s GHG emissions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, global greenhouse gas emissions data, 2015).

Fig. 2. (a) Biogeochemical climate services reflect the greenhouse gases that would be released from land clearing and the change in ongoing exchange with the atmosphere. (b) Similarly, land clearing affects biophysical climate services, albedo, related to net radiation (Rnet), and latent heat flux from evaporation (LE), related to changes in evapotranspiration. Positive values represent a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. (c) The sum of greenhouse gases and biophysical factors is the climate regulating value (CRV) of an ecosystem. Values are normalized to the warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) and are expressed relative to bare ground over a 50-year time frame. Replacing an ecosystem with a high CRV with that having a low value would have a net warming effect on the atmosphere and vice versa. Reproduced from Anderson-Teixiera et al. [2012].

However, global effects are complicated because evapotranspiration means more moisture in the atmosphere, which can increase cloud cover, affecting the global radiation balance. Also, when the moisture condenses into clouds elsewhere, it releases its latent heat, which can cancel the local cooling effect [Pielke et al., 2002; Snyder et al., 2004]. Unlike GHGs that have a locally weak but globally strong effect on the atmosphere, albedo and evapotranspiration affect climate locally [Bright, 2015].

By normalizing the warming (or cooling) potential of nitrous oxide (N₂O), methane, albedo, and evapotranspiration to the warming potential of CO₂, the contribution of different ecosystems to climate regulation can be expressed as a single metric: the climate regulating value (CRV) [Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2012]; this value provides an integrated index of the direct effects of land clearing on the surface energy budget, where the greater the CRV is, the greater the cooling effect is (Figure 2).

Long-Term Strategic Planting

In native forests and other ecosystems with large carbon stocks, biogeochemical processes—those processes that store and exchange GHGs with the atmosphere—can play a larger role in regulating the climate than biophysical processes such as changes in evapotranspiration and albedo (Figure 2). The opposite can be true for perennial grasses that don’t store much biomass but have high evapotranspiration and albedo.

Therefore, displacing native forests, particularly tropical forests, with annual or perennial crops for energy production will, in most cases, have a net warming effect on the atmosphere, releasing large quantities of carbon stored in biomass and soil (Figure 2). But replacing annual crops or placing high-yield bioenergy crops on marginal land (that is, land that cannot produce high-value crops) has a very different effect.

Replacing annual crops with perennial grasses such as miscanthus and switchgrass would pull carbon out of the atmosphere and return it to the ground (Figure 2). These crops allocate a large fraction of their biomass below ground in their root systems, and they can rapidly build up carbon stores in soil, reversing losses associated with frequent tillage, particularly on degraded or heavily tilled soils [Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2009, 2013; Powlson et al., 2011].

In terms of climate effects, this is doubly helpful. In addition to displacing fossil fuels by providing a renewable biofuel, replacing low-CRV annual crops with high-CRV perennial grasses would have a net cooling effect on the atmosphere because of the changes in biogeochemical and biophysical properties. In particular, the increased albedo from perennial grass and the heat carried away by evapotranspiration can amount to a considerable cooling effect compared to annual row crops [Georgescu et al., 2011].

The U.S. Midwest: From Carbon Source to Sink

Of the approximately 40 million hectares in the United States that are planted with corn, mostly in the Midwest, only 8% of them directly feeds humans; most of the rest (73%) is for feeding livestock and producing ethanol (National Agricultural Statistics Service website, 2015). Displacing corn currently grown for ethanol with high-yielding perennial grasses would have enormous environmental benefits, without displacing land used for food production. Davis et al. [2012] predict that replacing ethanol-bound corn with perennial grasses would reduce emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere while increasing soil carbon. The emissions of N₂O in particular would be reduced because perennial grasses require so much less nitrogen than corn [Smith et al., 2013]. Over the entire region, this transition would convert soils in the Midwest from a net source to a net sink for GHGs while simultaneously increasing fuel production and reducing the contamination of groundwater by fertilizer-derived nitrate.

Prime corn land is expensive. Restricting most bioenergy grasses to more affordable marginal land would also drive a reduction in U.S. GHG emissions, albeit a smaller one than replacing corn ethanol, and would still meet the Renewal Fuel Standard’s mandate for 32 billion gallons of renewable biofuel, with negligible effects on food crop production [Hudiburg et al., 2015].

The biophysical processes will also help to regulate climate. Evapotranspiration would increase slightly—less than 10% [VanLoocke et al., 2010]—but combined with an increased albedo, that’s enough to provide an additional local cooling effect.

The Promise and Challenges of a Bioenergy Landscape

In addition to displacing CO₂ emitted from fossil fuels, the expansion of perennial bioenergy crops in the U.S. Midwest will likely have positive effects on the climate system. This, however, is not necessarily the case elsewhere. In much of the United States west of the 100th meridian (a line that roughly bisects the Dakotas and Texas), the ability of the atmosphere to remove water (potential evapotranspiration) exceeds precipitation. There, the irrigation necessary for energy crops would pose severe environmental challenges.

In Southeast Asia, displacing native forest with palm oil plantations, in part for biodiesel, has increased the amount of atmospheric GHGs and hurt biodiversity [Danielsen et al., 2009]. Furthermore, by increasing grain prices, displacing food crops with bioenergy crops may encourage deforestation in the tropics for expanding agriculture [Searchinger et al., 2008].

We must take care to avoid these unintended negative consequences of expanding lignocellulosic bioenergy production. But with appropriate financial incentives [Dwivedi et al., 2015], there are many strategies to use land sustainably to contribute to the U.S. demand for transportation fuel: the use of marginal or underproductive lands [Gelfand et al., 2013] or replacing intensively managed corn for ethanol with high-yielding, low-input perennials. When annual crops that require intensive management are replaced with high-yielding perennial plants, bioenergy crops can simultaneously reduce the emission of GHGs to the atmosphere and improve the health of agricultural landscapes [Werling et al., 2014].

Evan H. DeLucia, Department of Plant Biology, Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment, Energy Biosciences Institute and Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; email: delucia@illinois.edu

References

Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., S. C. Davis, M. D. Masters, and E. H. DeLucia (2009), Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops, Global Change Biol. Bioenergy, 1, 75–96.

Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., P. K. Snyder, T. E. Twine, C. V. Cuadra, M. H. Costa, and E. H. DeLucia (2012), Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 177–181, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1346.

Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., M. M. Masters, C. J. Black, M. Zeri, M. Z. Hussain, C. J. Bernacchi, and E. H. DeLucia (2013), Altered belowground carbon cycling following land-use change to perennial bioenergy crops, Ecosystems, 16, 508–520.

Bright, R. M. (2015), Metrics for biogeophysical climate forcings from land use and land cover changes and their inclusion in life cycle assessment: A critical review, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 3291–3303.

Danielsen, F., H. Beukema, N. D. Burgess, F. Parish, C. A. Brühl, P. F. Donald, D. Murdiyarso, B. Phalan, L. Reijinders, M. Struebig, and E. B. Fitzherbert (2009), Biofuel plantations on forested lands: Double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate, Conserv. Biol., 23, 348–358.

Davin, E. L., S. I. Seneviratne, P. Ciais, A. Olioso, and T. Wang (2014), Preferential cooling of hot extremes from cropland albedo management, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111, 9757–9761.

Davis, S. C., W. J. Parton, S. J. Del Grosso, C. Keogh, E. Marx, and E. H. DeLucia (2012), Impact of second-generation biofuel agriculture on greenhouse-gas emissions in the corn-growing regions of the US, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10, 69–74.

Dwivedi, P., et al. (2015), Cost of abating greenhouse gas emissions with cellulosic ethanol, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 2512–2522.

Gelfand, I., R. Sahajpal, X. Zhang, R. C. Izaurralde, K. L. Gross, and G. P. Robertson (2013), Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest, Nature, 493, 514–520.

Georgescu, M., D. B. Lobell, and C. B. Field (2011), Direct climate effects of perennial bioenergy crops in the United States, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 108, 4307–4312.

Hudiburg, T. W., W. W. Wang, M. Khanna, S. P. Long, P. Dwivedi, W. J. Parton, M. Hartmann, and E. H. DeLucia (2015), Impacts of a 32-billion-gallon bioenergy landscape on land and fossil fuel use in the US, Nat. Energy, in press.

Jobbágy, E. G., and R. B. Jackson (2000), The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation, Ecol. Appl., 10, 423–436.

Pielke, R. A., et al. (2002), The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: Relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases, in Capturing Carbon and Conserving Biodiversity: A Market Approach, edited by I. R. Swingland, pp. 157–172, Earthscan Publ., London.

Powlson, D. S., A. P. Whitmore, and W. W. T. Goulding (2011), Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify true and false, Eur. J. Soil Sci., 62, 42–55.

Searchinger, T., R. Helmlich, R. A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeld, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.-H. Yu (2008), The use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change, Science, 319, 1238–1240.

Smith, C. M., et al. (2013), Reduced nitrogen losses after conversion of row crop agriculture to perennial bioenergy crops, J. Environ. Qual., 42, 219–228.

Snyder, P. K., C. Delire, and J. A. Foley (2004), Evaluating the influence of different vegetation biomes on the global climate, Clim. Dyn., 23, 279–302.

Somerville, C., H. Youngs, C. Taylor, S. C. Davis, and S. P. Long (2010), Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels, Science, 329, 790–792.

VanLoocke, A., C. J. Bernacchi, and T. E. Twine (2010), The impacts of Miscanthus x giganteus production on the Midwestern US hydrologic cycle, Global Change Biol. Bioenergy, 2, 180–191.

Werling, B. P., et al. (2014), Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111, 1652–1657.

Zhao, K., and R. B. Jackson (2014), Biophysical forcings of land-use change from potential forestry activities in North America, Ecol. Monogr., 84, 329–353.

Greenpeace says world leaders must not let the fossil fuel industry stand in the way of the necessary—and attainable—transition to a clean and safe energy future

With scientists and experts from around the world telling world leaders with increasing urgency ahead of upcoming climate talks in Paris that “It must be done,” a new report says “It can be done.”

As the planetary impacts of global warming become more apparent with every passing day, the goal of building and maintaining an energy system run on 100 % renewable power has become one of the driving demands of the world’s environmental and climate justice movements, new research presented by Greenpeace on Monday shows that if the political will can be mustered, there are neither technological nor economic barriers preventing humanity from building a fossil fuel- and nuclear-free world by 2050.

“I urge all those who say ‘it can’t be done’ to read this report and recognize that it can be done and must be done for the benefit of people around the world.”

~Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace

“The phase out of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy is not only needed, but can be achieved globally by mid-century,” said Kelly Mitchell, the climate and energy campaign director for Greenpeace USA. “In the US, we must prioritize keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground while accelerating the transition to clean energy like wind and solar. Doing so would both create new jobs and ensure a healthier planet for future generations.”

According to the report:

100% renewable energy for all is achievable by 2050, and is the only way to ensure the world does not descend into catastrophic climate change. Dynamic change is taking place in the energy sector. Renewable energies have become mainstream in most countries, and prices have fallen  dramatically.  The report shows we could transform our energy supply, switching to renewables, which would mean a stabilization of global CO2 emissions by 2020, and bringing down emissions  towards near zero emissions in 2050.

Produced in collaboration with researchers at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), the new Greenpeace report—titled World Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook 2015—is the latest global energy analysis which shows that not only is the transition to cleaner energy sources possibly in the coming decades, the actual financial costs of taking on a such a massive transition would actually be cheaper over the coming decades than retaining the “dirty energy” status quo in the face of climate change.

Greenpeace admits the cost of its plan is “huge” but that “the savings are even bigger.” According to their estimates, the global average of additional investment needed in renewables is roughly $1 trillion a year until 2050. However, because renewables don’t require continuous fuel inputs, the savings over the same period would be $1.07 trillion a year, more than covering the costs of the required up-front investment.

Calling for a strategic phase-out of both fossil fuel and nuclear energy by mid-century, the Greenpeace plan targets the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels first—including lignite and coal—before moving on to less-polluting sources like oil and gas.

“We must not let the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying stand in the way of a switch to renewable energy, the most effective and fairest way to deliver a clean and safe energy future,” said Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo. “I urge all those who say ‘it can’t be done’ to read this report and recognize that it can be done and must be done for the benefit of people around the world.”

What’s more, the group says, this energy transformation would be a source of millions upon millions of jobs, more than enough to replace those lost by the shuttering of the coal, oil, and gas industries.

The report says that nearly 20 million jobs in the renewable energy sector could be created between now and 2030, because of strong growth and investment in renewables. The solar photovoltaic (PV) industry alone, the research estimates, will provide 9.7 million jobs, equal to the number of people now working in the coal industry today. In the wind sector—which has shown unprecedented growth in recent years–job growth will continue grow to over 7.8 million jobs, twice as many as are employed in oil and gas today.

“The solar and wind industries have come of age, and are now cost competitive with coal,” said Greenpeace’s Sven Teske, the lead author of the report. “It is very likely they will overtake the coal industry in terms of jobs and energy supplied within the next decade. It’s the responsibility of the fossil fuel industry to prepare for these changes in the labor market and make provisions. Every dollar invested in new fossil fuel projects is high risk capital which could end up as stranded investment.”

With the UN climate talks in Paris fast-approaching, Greenpeace says the urgency of the crisis must compel political leaders to finally act—and act boldly—on the message that the scientific community and civil society leaders have been issuing with growing levels of intensity in recent years.

With their new report as a blueprint for what’s possible, said Naidoo, “the Paris climate agreement must deliver a long term vision for phasing out coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy by mid-century, reaching the goal of 100% renewables with energy access for all.”

Read the Full Report

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

A Colorado community is developing a community-based clean energy economy.

Citizens of Boulder, Colorado, in collaboration with city government, have been engaged in local climate action activities for more than a decade, and in 2014 adopted a Climate Commitment to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Boulder, Colorado, sits at the foot of the Rocky Mountains a half-hour drive northwest of Denver. It is a city, but still small enough to be a coherent community. It is the home of a major university and many government and entrepreneurial scientific, academic, and technical enterprises. The residents share an appreciation for the natural beauty of the mountains and plains environment, and many settled here for that reason.

Today, Boulder’s city government is in a major legal struggle to municipalize its electricity grid. To accomplish that, it must wrest control from the incumbent monopoly investor-owned utility, Xcel Energy of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which acquired Public Service Company of Colorado 20 years ago.

The motivation for this struggle is not reliability or the quality or cost of service, but rather decarbonization—cleaner, local energy and global climate change mitigation. Xcel runs mostly on coal and has long-term commitments to fossil fuels. The Boulder community, in collaboration with its city government, has been engaged in significant local climate action activities for more than a decade, and last year adopted a Climate Commitment to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Boulder is inventing a new model for a “utility of the future.” Although a few other small cities such as Gainesville and Winter Park, Florida, and others have formed municipal utilities in recent years, they did so for financial, service-related, or other reasons. Boulder, on the other hand, is motivated by the desire for clean energy.

The city’s timing is excellent. The rapidly advancing technological revolution in electricity makes it more likely it will achieve its goals. Boulder’s municipal utility will take advantage of this revolution, making it fundamentally different from conventional munis.

Nearly 30 munis already exist in Colorado, including the neighboring cities of Fort Collins, Longmont, Colorado Springs, and others. However, these have been in existence for many decades and their structure, infrastructure, and business models are similar to conventional utilities. Some, like Fort Collins, are working to bring in more renewable energy, but this is a formidable challenge given its long legacy, infrastructure, and obligations around conventional generation. Other innovative established munis face a similar challenge, notably Austin Energy and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).

The Existing Paradigm

About 60% of the electricity in the United States is provided by investor-owned utilities. They operate on a century-old regulated monopoly business model based on cost recovery and return on capital assets. State regulators guarantee them a profit on the commodity sale of kilowatt-hours of electricity and a 10% to 12% return on capital assets. As a result, their profits depend on building and maintaining centralized generation and transmission infrastructure.

Renewables—particularly solar photovoltaics—are inherently distributed resources. There is essentially no economy of scale in building large generation and transmission infrastructure because it cannot compete long term with rooftop solar-plus-storage and other small-scale distributed renewable sources. As distributed renewables, especially when paired with energy storage, become more widespread, utilities, even traditional municipals and co-ops, will be left with large investments and/or long-term commitments in the centralized big grid paradigm. The conventional centralized utility infrastructure will become increasingly expensive and eventually obsolete. (See the March/April 2015 issue of SOLAR TODAY at bit.ly/1dgJaby for current examples of cost-effective distributed solar and storage.)

Buying the Wires and Poles

Although it must start by buying the existing wires and poles, the concept behind the Boulder muni is not to run a conventional electric utility that generates or purchases electricity. Rather, the idea is to provide energy services—health, comfort, safety, and economic vitality—to its customers, at the best price and with the least environmental impact.

Distributed energy resources like these photovoltaic (PV) systems in a Boulder neighborhood—especially when they are paired with on-site storage—may eventually make large centralized power plants obsolete. Photo: Dennis Schroeder NREL PIX 29600

In a sense, however, Boulder first must pay the “ransom” to get out from under what many perceive as a dysfunctional and inaccessible Public Utilities Commission-based regulatory regime. That is, the city must buy the right to govern its own local electricity grid.

Once this is achieved, an entirely new electricity paradigm can be implemented—one that is based on distributed renewable energy and in which the users generate most of the power. This will likely take the form of community solar microgrids based on solar-plus-storage at scales ranging from single homes to community solar gardens to commercial and industrial buildings. It will also likely include more small-scale hydro, because Boulder already generates a significant amount of local hydro-electric power.

Buying the “old wires and poles” is not an alternative to innovation but rather it is the price of the right to innovate. Also, the wires and poles will be needed to operate the local distribution grid as a service to the community.

Boulder’s new utility will likely include a number of community solar microgrids at scales ranging from single homes to larger PV installations. These arrays are part of an effort to achieve net zero energy at Fort Hunter Liggett in California. They provide shade for vehicles as well as produce electricity, and—when completed—this solar microgrid project will comprise 5 megawatts of PV generation and a 3-megawatt-hour battery energy storage system. Photo: U.S. Army, John Prettyman, CC

Although the voter-approved maximum authorized acquisition figure was $214 million, it is important to remember that whether the price is “expensive” or not is a calculation based on what Boulder would be paying out to a monopoly grid operator over time. In fact, it may turn out to be a bargain in the long run, especially if the city can achieve its clean energy goals.

Citizen-Driven Collaboration

Why not launch a statewide policy overhaul rather than a muni? The short answer is because local action is what works.

It’s increasingly true in the United States that effective action is only possible on the local community level. State and federal institutions have become so politicized, captured, and co-opted by corporate power and money that they are less and less accessible to citizens. The fracking confrontation and state preemption of local regulation is one example.

In Boulder, the muni project did not originate with the city government. The city only embraced the idea after years of committed grassroots efforts by many local citizens in passionate pursuit of cleaner energy. These Boulder residents talked through the issues among themselves, attended end- less meetings and hearings, and did the legwork it took to inform the City Council and then bring the city management and staff around. In fact, previous city officials—including a mayor, a city attorney, and a city manager—were opposed or uninterested.

A consensus began to coalesce in the 2007 timeframe with spontaneous gatherings in homes and cafes of citizens concerned about “de-carbonization.” Boulder citizens had passed a carbon tax in 2006 to fund local energy efficiency programs. Between 2008 and 2010, members of the City Council, frustrated by years of intractable and fruitless franchise renewal negotiations with Xcel and by the embarrassing $30 million debacle of Xcel’s “SmartGridCity” project, began to reconsider and look for alternatives.

Residents of Boulder, Colorado share an appreciation for the natural beauty of their local environment. Photo: City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks

City staff supported the decarbonization effort by hosting community meetings and working groups. Volunteer working groups and paid consultants completed studies and models. Mobilized by major successful battles around ballot measures during two subsequent elections (2011 and 2013), the growing community support matured and the city added more staff support. During 2013 and 2014, additional volunteer working groups were formed to study grid modeling, natural gas, solar, utility governance, collaboration with Xcel, and other technical and regulatory aspects of energy and electricity.

Boulder hired a muni director, Heather Bailey from Austin, Texas, with the title “executive director of energy strategy and electric utility development.” She is an experienced regulator, utility executive, and consultant with 30 years in the utility industry. She and her Energy Future staff are currently pursuing the legal and regulatory action required to take over the local grid.

The City Council, city staff, muni director, and Energy Future staff all understand that the success of the municipalization effort depends on civic engagement and the community’s base of active volunteers. This is why the 2011 and 2013 muni ballot measures prevailed against heavily (10:1) financed opposition.

In parallel with the condemnation and acquisition effort by city staff, several new volunteer working groups meet on a regular basis, research various problems, develop reports, and recommend policies. These groups focus on issues including resource acquisition, rates, and energy services.

Independent of city government efforts, some volunteer civic, business, and professional groups in town sponsor periodic events that feature guest speakers, seminars, fundraisers, or social gatherings to foster community understanding and encourage dialogue related to energy and environmental issues. Many of these events engage citizens with elected officials or city staff working on different aspects of municipalization and other clean energy activities.

Next Steps

City staff will move the muni forward by condemning and purchasing the local grid infrastructure during what will likely be a multi-year legal and regulatory battle. Another critical initiative will be developing ways to facilitate the financial investment needed to convert the local grid to solar and other renewables. For example, the city might establish a municipal bond or secure investment bank financing to establish a city loan or grant fund for helping residents, government facilities, and businesses install solar and other renewable energy equipment. This could take the form of solar gardens, community microgrids, rooftop solar, distributed grid storage batteries, small-scale hydro, wind, LED lighting, and energy efficiency programs.

Planning is also in process to organize and manage the eventual transition from the present electricity system to the new system. This involves arranging to purchase electricity for a period of time while the muni starts up and developing demonstration projects to verify the viability of the technical solutions under consideration (rooftop solar plus batteries, electric vehicle charging stations, etc.). Boulder will also have to organize a “service utility” to maintain and operate the local grid by hiring the necessary professionals and identifying the existing inventory, new equipment, and other resources required to operate its own utility.

Power to (and From) the People

As Boulder shapes its energy future, it has adopted an “energy localization framework.” This framework seeks to democratize energy decision making so customers have more direct control over and involvement in energy decisions. This includes opportunities to invest in their long-term energy needs and to have a say in energy investments made on their behalf.

Schools provide excellent venues for solar installations, both because the electricity can reduce their utility costs and because the systems offer educational opportunities for students. Photo: Dennis Schroeder, NREL

Under the framework, energy would be generated locally or regionally whenever feasible, reducing reliance on external fuel sources. Customers would manage and reduce their energy use directly and effectively and energy service companies would compete and innovate within a diverse and robust local energy economy.

Renewable and clean fuel sources would be used whenever possible and would be brought into the energy mix as quickly as possible. This will have the effect of decarbonizing the energy supply and minimizing both short- and long-term environmental impacts. It will also promote energy independence.

As Boulder works through the process of establishing its municipal utility, it’s hard to know precisely what the final outcome will be. The lessons learned may go far beyond providing electricity and energy services to local homes and businesses, however. This collaboration of citizens, elected officials, and city staff may prove to be an example of the purest kind of democracy in action.

To build a new, clean energy future, communities and citizens need to take back their power. In Boulder, at least, it appears that power really will come from the people.

Timothy Schoechle, Ph.D., (timothy@schoechle.org) is a senior research fellow at the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP). He lives in Boulder, volunteers on municipalization working groups, and does electronic engineering for solar homes and buildings.

This article originally appeared in the May/June issue of SOLAR TODAY magazine, published by the American Solar Energy Society. solartoday.org

Advances in printed solar cell technology promise clean renewable energy, opening possibilities for 1.3 billion people still without electric power in developing countries.

The technology, which only requires the use of existing industrial-size printers, can produce solar cells that are flexible and inexpensive to transport, says Scott Watkins, director of the overseas business unit of Korean firm Kyung-In Synthetic.

Scott Watkins with a roll of thin film solar cells: the active layer is 200 times thinner than a human hair. Credit: Tracey Nicholls/scienceimage

The malleable nature of the paper-thin solar cells makes it ideal for rural communities in remote locations, adds Watkins who spoke at the Smart Villages session of the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea on June 8th, 2015.

Existing solar energy technology consists of silicon-based panels which are produced in wafers and require a large amount of sunlight to be efficient. Printed solar cells employ a more organic approach that uses perovskites, a mineral made out of a precise mixture of lead, iodine and a simple organic component.

Interest and research funding in printed solar cell technology has taken off in recent years, resulting to a jump in energy efficiency to 20 per cent from just 3 per cent a few years ago.

However, printed solar cells have been shown to be vulnerable to moisture and may cause lead contamination should the cell break.

Watkins says that his organisation is looking into different types of coaters such as dual-feed spray coaters that allow for more customisable solar prints.

I’ve witnessed first-hand how the technology has enabled urban poor communities in India to access off-grid electricity.”

~ Scott Watkins, Kyung-in Synthetic

“Printed solar cells have worked very well with Smart Village programmes. I’ve witnessed first-hand how the technology has enabled urban poor communities in India to access off-grid electricity,” says Watkins.

“Its success is due to its cost effectiveness and simplicity. A 10×10 cm solar cell film is enough to generate as much as 10-50 watts per square metre,” he adds.

But some challenges hinder large-scale production and distribution of the technology.

Bernie Jones, project co-leader of the Smart Villages Initiative, notes that although they have almost perfected the method of producing solar film strips at a low cost, replicating the production process requires a large amount of capital.

“Entrepreneurs we’ve engaged cannot afford to invest in the printing machines needed to produce cheap solar strips,” says Jones.

Other problems involve setting up a distribution network, which can be challenging for communities situated in remote areas. Some villages such as the Bario community in Sarawak are only accessible by river, which also opens issues regarding payment and monetary collection, Jones says.

Jones suggests establishing a cooperative system, citing the case of farmers’ cooperatives in Rwanda. He says this may alleviate the issue of distribution while solving the initial problem of securing capital.

This article has been produced by SciDev.Net’s South-East Asia & Pacific desk, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.