Solyndra bankrupt - and not all bad

I saw news today that Solyndra was forced to declare bankruptcy today. There's lots of handwringing and schadenfreude happening over this because $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. It was part of the vaunted 'green jobs' part of the stimulus.

I think its actually good (overall) that prices are coming down, and we're seeing some consolodation in the industry. The only way solar ever gets to grid-competitive (which is very possible) is by reducing prices. And - there's a lot of solar companies in the US right now. There were a lot of car companies in the US in 1910. Recessions thinned them our so that only the best three remained to compete around the world. Don't think that early car companies didn't get any federal help. Probably an even better example is the railroads. There were many - they all received support from the federal government

And - even with the Chinese driving down prices, the US had a $1.9 billion surplus in solar exports last year, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. So - even if there's not a lot of jobs - that's still a lot of money being made.

Asian Companies want technology - not Canadian Exports

I'm almost done with the tar sands, but there is one other argument I've heard a lot about: Asian national oil companies are buying up shares in Canadian oil companies to secure access to their oil.

However, I understand that the investments from Asian oil companies in Canada is not really for supply, contrary to many assumptions. Instead, Asian (particularly Chinese, but also Malaysian and Indian) companies are looking for access to technology. If they can master the technology for fracking, horizontal drilling, and in-situ drilling, they will open up many new areas of domestic production. That's really what they're after - not Canadian oil.

Even More on the Tar Sands

Prompted by a very interesting post on Grist, "Everything you’ve heard about the tar sands and energy security is wrong", which said that we should keep Canadian oil in reserve to ensure longer-term energy security - a point I also made in my recent (and long-winded) post on the Tar Sands and the Keystone pipeline.

That has prompted an interesting discussion on the nature of energy security, and our relationship to Canada.

It clearly would be in Canadian producer companies interests to open up their Pacific coast to oil exports. There has, indeed, been a push to build a pipeline to the coast, at the port of Kitamat. However, there is significant opposition, from both environmentalists and Native Americans, to building it. They will probably be enough to block it, at least for a time. So - we can't simply assume that the export routes will open. Here's a source on that.

What will actually happen on the Oil Sands

I just finished a post on why I think that permitting the Keystone XL pipeline would not benefit American energy security, economic stability, or environmental sustainablity (see also here on ASP's blog).

However, that does not mean I think that anyone will listen to me.

Before they left for their August recess, the House passed legislation that would require the State Department to issue a ruling on whether or not to allow the pipeline to move forward. Although the legislation is unlikely to move through the Senate, it does put pressure on the Administration to move forward with its decision.

As much as the Administration has done on climate and environmental policy, I think they realize they're vulnerable to charges of not creating enough jobs. That will be question #1 in next fall's election, and I think they're willing to sacrifice environmentalists (who have never proved able to deliver any votes) for jobs. If Bill McKibben and 350.org can use their direct action to convince policymakers otherwise, more power to them. But, I'm not sure that will actually happen.

On the Canadian Oil (or Tar) Sands

I've been trying to figure out one which side I come down on regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. For those unfamiliar with it, the Keystone XL pipeline is a proposed expansion of a pipeline operated by TransCanada to bring oil from the Northern Alberta refined from the oil sands (or tar sands) into the United States and down to the main American refineries in Texas and Louisiana.

Be prepared - this is a long post, because this is a complicated and difficult issue. I am writing about this now because there has been a series of protests against the oil sands by Greenpeace and Bill McKibben's 350.org group. I see that a number of protesters have been arrested this week at the White House.

This is a difficult topic to write about because, as I have been writing, most recently in my paper "America's Energy Choices" and the Op-Ed published along with it, we have to consider three aspects when making choices about energy: (1) energy security, (2) economic stability, and (3) environmental sustainability. The problem with the Canadian oil sands is that these three concerns come into conflict, thus proving that determining America's energy future will require us to make difficult choices.

States rights and National Energy Markets

As I mentioned in a post earlier today, I have a post up on The Hill's Congress Blog, "The Energy Choices We Need to Make". I noticed a couple of comments were already up on the post.

I knew it was probably a mistake to read the comments when the first one said "Get the communist out of the decisions Period", but I forged on anyway. Ultimately, once you get through the crazy, they actually brought up a good point.

It is a common perception that everything should happen at the state level. If Washington is broken, then it seems that you would want decisions made in your statehouse, not in broken Washington. However the energy and electricity markets are national, not local. If we leave it up to 50 states to make decisions about energy policy and regulation, that is a recipe for the status quo.

And the status quo leaves us with an energy system in decline. One where energy will get more expensive, dirtier, and we will remain dependent upon foreign countries for our energy.

I think, in order to let the private sector work best in energy markets, Congress needs to make some long-term, strategic decisions about what we want our energy system to look like in 30 years, and set up the regulatory structure that will make that happen. Once that is set up, then the markets will determine the best way to meet those goals.

Ironically, the one state that could argue 'States' Rights' - at least in the case of the electricity market - is Texas, because their electrical grid is separate from the national grid.

Post in the Hill's Congress Blog

I've got a new post up in the Hill's Congress Blog. I've reprinted it below. 

Thirty-seven years ago, President Richard Nixon announced a national goal that by “the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.”
 
Since this 1974 State of the Union address some sort of ‘energy independence’ has been a stated policy of every Presidential administration, but the United States though has not come anywhere near ‘energy independence.’
 
Today, we have an opportunity to set on a road to achieve these goals.