Tag Archives: energy

Canada’s tar sands: Oil from Sand: High Risks, High Costs | The Fiscal Times

As oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s sunken Deepwater Horizon rig, half a continent away a major new pipeline is delivering the first supplies of crude to refineries in Illinois. With the consistency of heavy molasses, the raw oil took about three months to travel some 1,073 miles.

The pipeline is the first step in a $12 billion TransCanada Corp. project that aims to more than double the capacity of oil that can be piped into the U.S from Canada, just as Americans are looking for alternatives to offshore drilling and oil from the Middle East. Oil extracted from Alberta’s tar sands — deposits of dense, sticky sand, saturated with a viscous form of petroleum — account for about 20 percent of U.S. crude imports. The newly opened pipeline, known as Keystone I, is part of a network that, when completed, will wind 3,800 miles underground through three provinces and eight Great Plains states before terminating in Texas.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/07/08/Oil-from-Sand-High-Risks-High-Costs.aspx

Will Demand for Solar Homes Pick Up? | BusinessWeek

https://i0.wp.com/images.businessweek.com/story/08/600/1023_mz_solar.jpg?w=474

Builders find the savings from cheap power is making solar homes more attractive

As global financial markets melted down in October, Congress handed a gift to America’s green energy industry: It renewed and broadened a set of tax credits for wind and solar power, geothermal, tidal energy, and more. The move did little to prop up eco-energy stocks, which have followed oil prices down. But the news did send a positive jolt to one of the economy’s darkest sectors: homebuilding. Or, more specifically, solar-powered homes. Consumers recognize that green homes “save money month in, month out,” says Rick Andreen, president of Shea Homes Active Lifestyles Communities in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Most of the sweeteners Congress conjured up will go to big projects such as wind farms. But aspiring buyers of green homes will benefit, too. The revised 30% one-time investment credit for solar means that a buyer who installs a typical $25,000 solar panel system on his roof will get $7,500 in income tax credits, up from $2,000 under the old standard. How long that investment takes to pay off will depend on local rules and utility rates. In markets with the most costly power, such as California, Connecticut, and New Jersey, the pretax compound rate of return on a typical home solar system will be better than 15% per year, says Andy Black, chief executive of OnGrid Solar, an industry research firm.

The fresh credits may mark a turning point for solar-powered homes. During the housing boom, when mortgages and energy were both cheap, green power was not a hot option; typical home buyers preferred granite countertops to solar panels. But even before the subprime crash, builders began to see rising interest in sun-powered dwellings. Ryness Co., which compiles sales data for homebuilders, found in a recent survey that homes with solar systems were outselling others by as much as 2:1 in 13 California communities.

Today there are about 40,000 solar homes in the U.S., but that number is set to spike. Shea is adding solar to communities planned for Arizona, California, Florida, and Washington State. And, responding to a shift in buyers’ attitudes, big builders such as Centex (CTX), Lennar (LEN), Pulte Homes (PHM), and Woodside Homes are following suit. Consider Whitney Ranch, a development south of Sacramento. Sales there softened in the housing downturn, says Kathryn Boyce, an executive at Hanley Wood Market Intelligence. But when Standard Pacific Homes (SPF) put solar systems on a group of new models in the development, they sold out. The builder then decided to install panels on all 304 of the homes.

The appeal of solar homes could grow as the economic outlook worsens. The more utility bills cut into household reserves, “the more consumers recognize the value of efficiency,” says Robert W. Hammon, principal of ConSol, a green building consulting firm. And there’s growing consumer awareness that solar homes appreciate faster than ordinary dwellings. They also resell for a premium of up to 5%.

According to Ben Hoen, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who studies the effects of eco-features on real estate values, more homeowners now see solar panels as a long-term asset. Mortgage lenders, however, have been slow to make that link. The loan processes at Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) don’t give special treatment to buyers who make improvements to lower utility bills, says Shea’s Andreen. Builders wish lenders would start to take stock of eco-features. “Solar panels free up household cash flow,” Andreen says. “Lenders should recognize that.”

Aston is Energy & Environment editor for BusinessWeek in New York.

Link to story here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_44/b4106088155598.htm

Who Will Run The Plants? The nuclear industry faces a graying workforce | BusinessWeek

If you walk the halls of Westinghouse or GE Nuclear, the top U.S. builders of atomic power plants, you’ll notice a buzz in the air–the first stirring of excitement since the 1970s. With many experts endorsing nuclear power as a clean replacement for coal-burning plants linked with climate change, nuclear players are gearing up to build more than 20 reactors, the first new facilities on U.S. soil in decade.

But roaming the same hallways, something else seems odd: There are practically no young people. After years lying dormant, the industry faces a dire labor shortage, and it will get worse during the next 5 to 10 years as thousands of aging workers drift off to golf courses and retirement homes. So plant builders and utilities are frantically searching for fresh talent. If the industry is to have any future, “young workers are the key,” says Howard J. Bruschi, a retired chief technology officer at Westinghouse Electric Co. who helped design the company’s newest reactor, a model that has been selected for 10 projects in the U.S.

The dilemma dates from the late 1970s, when skyrocketing costs began to chill investor enthusiasm for new plants. In 1979 a partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island doomed the industry’s optimistic vision of 1,000 atomic plants. Hiring stalled, and nuclear engineering programs at universities stopped churning out graduates. In short, a whole generation of nuclear workers went missing.

Today, the average age in the nuclear power sector is 48–one of the oldest of any U.S. industry. By 2010 about 27% of these workers will be eligible to retire–some 15,600 men and women. A further 7,600 or so are expected to exit the industry through turnover. That entire head count will need to be replaced to keep today’s fleet of 104 reactors humming.

Factor in projected growth, and the situation is even more serious. A substantially larger workforce will be needed by 2010, when the first of two dozen proposed reactors enters the long design and construction process. Overseas, 27 plants are under way, 62 are on order or planned, and an additional 130 have been proposed.

Even if only a fraction of those plants are built, the industry faces a “severe shortage of qualified workers,” according to the American Nuclear Society. “We’re probably getting 80% to 90% of what we need,” says Andy White, president and CEO of GE Nuclear Energy Inc. (GE ), whose reactors have already been selected for seven new U.S. projects.

NO EMISSIONS

It’s easy to see why some industry executives have started to fret. It can take years for new hires to master the industry’s complex procedures and absorb its safety-obsessed culture. “Five years ago, we didn’t dream we’d be building on this scale again,” says Amir Shahkarami, senior vice-president for engineering and technical services at Exelon Corp. (EXC ), the nation’s largest nuclear utility. Exelon operates 17 reactors today and is considering one new facility. “The aging workforce will result in a substantial loss of experience,” Shahkarami says.

Just how quickly colleges can crank out such highly specialized engineers remains a question. Some 34 nuclear engineering departments have closed since 1980, leaving just 29 today. By the late 1990s, the number of undergraduate students enrolled in such programs had fallen to fewer than 500 a year. Yet in the past several years, enrollment has again begun to rise. In 2007, total nuclear engineering majors in the U.S. will approach 2,000, predicts John Gutteridge, director of university programs at the Energy Dept.

Several factors account for renewed interest on campuses. Starting salaries in nuclear power jumped 6.6% last year, to about $54,600. In addition, today’s students are far more worried about global warming than the risks of a nuclear meltdown or the problems of waste disposal. Coming of age long after the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, new hires in the power sector tend to regard atomic energy as a plausible solution to America’s energy woes–as did the engineers who built the first generation of nukes. The fact that plants emit no greenhouse gases is a huge plus. “I want to be sure my kids can plug in their iPods someday, too,” says Michelle Yun, a recent grad who joined Exelon as a licensing engineer last year.

DeLeah Lockridge, a senior engineer in Westinghouse’s services unit, is thrilled by the prospect of new plant construction. When she entered the company in 1999–one of the first new hires following a long freeze–Lockridge worried that nuclear energy might be a dying industry. “I didn’t expect to have the opportunity my instructors had,” she says. “Now, I want to build a plant.”