The obstacles to Alternative Energy implementation are in our heads. Are they?

Everybody is talking about how the economy is affecting the inertia of Greentech by (a) limiting investment and (b) having to compete with lower fuel costs

I believe that we are closer to implementable solutions than what most people think and I will try to make the calculations to prove this point. Please feel free to correct me wherever you think I might be wrong (I am no expert on this specific subject).

The average home in the US consumed 936 kWh per month in 2007 (according to the US Department of Energy), that represents $99.70 spent per month in electricity ($1,196.40 per year).

If we were to buy an alternative energy technology we could spend in that technology the equivalent capital for which annual payments equal $1,196.40 (for interest and principal – mortgage style)

Let’s assume we can get a loan at 4% for 20 years. The capital for annual payments of $1,196.40 at 4% over 20 years is $16,259.47 (at the end of 20 years the debt will be zero).

Now, let's see what we can afford with this money!

Perhaps we could buy a wind turbine. In order to calculate the capacity (and the cost) of a turbine able to cover 100% of our energy needs we need to bring the monthly kWh into a 10 hour day wind energy production. Therefore, 936 kWh divided by 30 days gives us 31.2 kWh per day. We then divide by 10 hours and obtain 3.12 kWh (per hour). In short, we need to generate 3.12 kWh for 10 hours every day to cover 100% of our electricity needs (this is achievable in almost any state with wind turbines that have a 5 m/s or 11MPH minimum wind capacity)

After a lot of web searching I found that the cost of a 3.5 kW wind turbine runs around the $12,000 mark (installed). There are additional charges for maintenance, but the "extra" $4,259.47 (remember we had $16,259.47 as total capital available) should more than suffice for those expenses.

An alternative for the wind turbine is solar power. In this case we need to convert the 31.2 kWh per day into 5 hour days of sun. Therefore, we need 6.24 kW solar panels tied to the grid (31.2 kWh per day divided by 5). According to my research these will run for around $40,000 ($23,740.53 over our budget)

But wait! We have not counted the rebates and incentives we could get from state and federal entities. I do not have enough time or energy to calculate the applicable rebates, because each county and each state and each technology has a different rebate quantity and procedure. I will risk saying that the available rebates range between 20% to 50% (perhaps making the solar panels affordable!)

Can the same principle be applied to water? Could we start by calculating the cost of water and sewer in a typical house and then find technologies that could replace either the water sourcing or the waste water removal service? The answer: I don’t know (perhaps I will explore this in a future article)

Some of the comments I got from last week's Energy Storage:

"I believe pumped-storage hydroelectric has and is being used. I remember Northfield Mountain in Massachusetts being the first that I had ever seen. Here's a Wikipedia link describing the technology and current sites using it: click"

"The gravity part is the easy part, I suspect. You will need to either find a natural land formation where you can store the water, OR, you will have to build a vessel. Perhaps that is the hidden cost. Also, you have to consider the efficiency of the system... First the primary renewable energy source cost and efficiency, then the pumping uphill efficiency, and finally, your hydro-electric generator efficiency -- that is a lot of steps and the overall efficiency, which is multiplicative, perhaps turns out to be dishearteningly low."

"This approach was implemented in Bath County, Virginia back in the 70's. It apparently worked quite well. However, it was implemented to utilize the electricity produced by coal fired turbine plants who produce a steady stream of power by day and by night, but where consumption was lower at night. So, they kept the plant at the same production level at night and used the electricity to pump the water back up the mountain above the hydro electric plant."

"The pumped hydro system suffers when you increase the scale. As the volume of water increases, the system becomes more expensive"

"That is what is being planned for Norway where there is a large hydro power industry - they are looking at having offshore wind turbines working continuously to drive pumps to release the power for peak shaving in Europe thru interconnectors."

"Last weekend I heared about a Spanish project were they haul up on a slope an 80 ton heavy concrete block when the wind was blowing, letting it make electricity when there was no wind! It is like the old clocks were you wind up the weight every day"

" It only makes sense when there are significant elevation changes, and most solar and wind farms are in the flat lands"

"1 cubic meter at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h for example lead-acid has power density around 100W/liter"

"A number of companies are looking at this, as well as compressed gas storage, flow batteries, etc. It looks like the maximum efficiency for pumped hydro is between 70% and 80%. Initial capital outlay for building the facility is high. It all depends on the price of fossil fuels and carbon credits..."

"Pumped hydro is severely limited in further deployment (we already have 20 GW of it in the US alone). Here's why: *Locations that have the requisite topography are very rare. *Safety issues regarding the construction of an upper aquifer at height are very real and, for the most part, insurmountable. *The politics of water make it almost completely impossible for new projects to launch. *The efficiency of pumped hydro is, at best, 78%. Batteries can achieve 85% efficiency. Right now the capital costs of batteries are far higher than pumped hydro. But placing a bet on battery prices falling due to economies of scale is smarter than placing a bet that some community somewhere will allow its water system to be interfered with."

"When I worked for an electric utility we had two pumped storage facilities that worked well but had the many of the problems indicated in previous posts. Another promising storage medium is compressed air energy storage (CAES) where air is pumped into an old salt mine (like the ones under several Great Lakes cities) and released to generate power. Like pumped hydro, the pumps turn into turbines and the motors turn into generators"

"Moving water from one place to the other in the wild raises all sorts of environmental questions. Better not done"

Until next week: SHALOM!

Energy storage

The best way to store energy is gravity.

You heard right! The best way to store energy is perhaps by pumping water upstream (or up to a large container) and letting Potential Energy take over.

If this is the case then, why are we not setting up renewable energy plants next to water sources and pumping water upstream? to then have hydro-electric generation to recuperate the stored energy?

Is it that we are not yet producing enough renewable energy to have to store it? or perhaps its the fact that no one has been able to coordinate power source, high storage and water source?

I have heard a million times that the biggest obstacle to renewable energy was power storage. Everyone points to the battery to be the "next big thing" in clean energy. Why is gravity and potential energy left in the dark?

In the previous weeks I wrote about the electric grid, one of the biggest dilemmas on power generation is weather to have local or centralized power. Many people responded to my post and the more I heard the more I am leaning towards distributed power generation. With distributed power it will be more feasible to have a "full renewable system" in place.

In a "full renewable system" energy generation is not a stand alone solution. We could have power generated from wind (for a small group of houses) and a reservoir to pump water up when the wind provides more than the necessary power. In change, we could use the water reservoir to generate power in low wind conditions and also as a receptacle of recycled water from the same community. This way we will link water recycling with power generation: True Sustainability!

 

Perhaps this is not the right combination of green technologies, perhaps there is a better formula using solar power and water heating solutions. The point is that we are very limited if with think of solutions in a one dimensional aspect (e.g. power generation) versus thinking on multi dimensional levels (e.g. the "full renewable system").

Here are some interesting comments from last week's question regarding the power grid:

"The growth of micro-wind turbines built as vertical axis turbines and mounted onto roof tops of commercial office blocks will do a lot for distributed power"

"Interestingly there have been some recent developments in high voltage dc systems - to ship power between different countries - but so far it's still not a proven technology as far as I can tell."

"The driver for sizing a power plant is the historic consumption and projected consumption for the future. Really it is based on the power markets in the area and pricing. Another large driver is transmission availability"

"I think that the crux of the problem is that you can't have a generator without a load, you can't put power into the grid that no one is going to consume, you must have always a load, that is the reason for having a smart grid that switch on more generators when the power requested from the grid increase and switch off the generators when the requested power decrease."

"Electric grid operators and power plants try to meet the demand of a given region but the real factor is cost and time to bring on new power plants and resources"

"Perhaps DC is the answer to all who are concerned with the fact that you can generate wind power, but you cannot get it to where the heavy electric load is located"

"There is actually a high-voltage, high-power DC line running from the Bonneville Power Authority in the Columbia Gorge to California"

"Generally, there are two types of power plants. Baseload and Peaking. Baseload plants, as you would expect, tend to run at full or nearly full capacity all the time. They tend to be designed for steady efficient power output, like a diesel truck engine. The peakers tend to be less efficient, sometimes much less, but can start up quickly and operate over a wide range of output levels. The respective capacities reflect the somewhat local needs for each type of power. Big transmission can modify that, but only within limits unless you go to.... DC transmission. This IS in use around the world, including the US. The limitations tend to be in the costs of converting from AC to DC and back to AC for final delivery so you only want to use it (generally) for long haul applications"

"Capacity of a power plant to produce power is defined by the total of the MCR (Maximum Continuous Rating) of each of the generators installed at specific conditions. The capacity needs of the power plant in the old regulated days was the capacity required to exceed the predicted load plus an allowance for the shutdown of one or more of the largest generators. This typically meant that 5 to 10 % of reserve capacity was to be available on the peak day to meet the peak load. This peak load is much smaller than the total of all potential loads installed by the various users including homes, businesses, and industry. For example a typical home will only use 10 to 15 % of all the capacity installed within the home on average. The peak demand might be larger and will coincide with other users peak demands on very hot days in the summer. The challenge with matching the electrical production with demand is that the transportation system does not store the electrical energy. Fossil fuel transport systems including natural gas pipelines or even the fuel tank in your car have considerable capacity to buffer difference in production and demand"

"The amount of power generated must exactly match the amount of power being consumed (used or wasted) or the mismatch will increase or decrease the system frequency. The frequency difference is usually very very small but still everyone tries very hard to prevent it. The utility or Independent System Operators (ISO) power dispatchers have a good idea (from historical data and from weather forecasts, etc.) how much power they will need and the time of day they will need it. Then they go to great lengths to measure how much power is going into their bulk power stations, how much is flowing in or out of their interconnection lines and how much is being generated at each plant and by each generator connected to their part of the grid. All of this is fed into a system modeling program in a computer which determines how much power should be generated for the next few seconds and which generator in which plant can generate it most economically"

"Actually, there are quite a few DC grids in the world. Most are found in Europe. On the distribution loss side, DC does not suffer skin effect loss so it does have an advantage there. With the advent of modern DC conversion technology, the argument that it is "harder" to convert DC levels has lost some of it's basis. Finally, after all of the conversion, distributions, and storage - the critical loads are always DC."

Well, I believe this is enough reading for one week. Until next week: SHALOM!

The Electric Grid. Answering question #2: What determines the capacity of power plants and #3: Why not a DC grid?

Again this week I would like to thank everyone for responding to my Electric Grid Questions. This week I will address the other two questions:

2- What determines the capacity needs of the power plant? Is it the installed capacity in the network (each appliance and circuit in each house, office and factory) or is it the historic average consumption of electricity?

3- Why can’t we have a direct current (DC) grid? Many alternative energy technologies struggle with the conversion from DC to AC (alternative current). Why do we need to use AC everywhere?

First of all, about the capacity. This question was difficult to formulate and it was also misunderstood on several responses. The reason for this question is to find out if there is something that can be done regarding Watts and Amperes of new appliances and alternative power sources to minimize the required capacity of new power generation.

At the end of the day my understanding is that even with the most efficient appliances in the grid, power generation and distribution is still a statistical game, and this is EXACTLY where the so called "smart" grid will contribute to energy savings. Power plants generate at constant preset levels and additional capacity is turned on or off based on "peak demand"

Regarding DC vs AC I gather that the big problem of DC is the inefficiency of transporting this current from the source to the user. But, I definitely see an opportunity in generating locally DC power and using it in DC appliances without wasting electricity in DC to AC conversion.

The other problem of the DC power is that many appliances relay on the frequency of the AC electricity to work properly. Many people also mentioned the fact that DC components are much more expensive than AC components. I believe the answer to both this issues relies on the fact that AC has been mainstream while DC has been kept in the dark. If we inject new force in the DC solution then we will find that the market will generate new ideas and better pricing for DC applications.

Some of the answers received:

"2. The capacity needs of the power plant should be based on total load installed [maximum consumption] + some allowance for VAR correction + anticipated or estimated future augmentation [load additions]
3. DC generation & distribution equipments are far more expensive than the AC equipments like generator, transformers, safety devices etc. Its comparatively cheaper to convert it at user end [the converter modules with the chord would not be more than $30 each"

"Dumb Grid allows double digit percentages of electricity to escape and a new Smart Grid would not.
The U.S. will need to install a new Smart Grid system if there is any chance of going to electric cars.
AC vs DC: AC technology is much more flexible and has a strong economic advantage as DC requires very thick copper."

"...why is there no DC? First, there are increasing uses of DC power in parts of the grid that consumers don't see. DC power can be used now for relatively long distance power transmission. But to switch the entire grid and each and every device that uses electricity from AC to DC would clearly be impossible. There may be room for DC in some applications; but not on a widespread basis."

"#2 - I think plant size is governed by politics, dollars available and demand.
#3 DC does not travel well. over distances the voltage drops. not true with ac. ac losses are in current - not volts."

"We could have a DC grid, and yes it would be much more efficient, but it is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime because no one will accept going without power long enough to switch the system around and highly unlikely investors or the government would pay to do it."

"2) Make the consumer more mindful of their power usage by forcing them to look at the data in the power distribution console/display or connected smart appliances designed to take advantage of data communications technologies built into both appliances, devices and the smart meter interface"

"2)There are additional needs to consider, including extra reserve capacity, based on rules from NERC/FERC. No one wants to experience a blackout or brownout, so the generators/systems/transmission lines all have extra capacity designed in

3)There are several examples of HVDC in North America. When it is most economically feasible, HVDC is used"

"2.There are no ideal figures for per capita electricity consumption as the same can be open ended.At the household level,one could consume as much electricity as one wants depending on availability.At the industry level,one could keep setting up newer manufacturing units once again depending upon availability of electricity.The best way is to link it to nominal and per capita GDP growth rate which the government plans to achieve.Growth in electricity generation must lead GDP growth by a factor of about 1.4 to 1.5.
3.This goes back to epic debate of AC vc DC between Nikola Tesla and Edison.AC won over DC and hence AC grids were set up.A DC grid needs inversion equipment which adds to the cost. However there is a realization that DC is more economical with lesser losses than AC over distances longer than 800 kms.There are now quite a few HVDC grids being set up."

"I believe that as alternative energy evolves, as more and more end users are using solar power, as LED lighting becomes the norm, that AC will eventually become extinct. The "grid" concept will be redundant"

"Transmission losses are the big dirty secret of centralized power."

Until next week... SHALOM!

The Electric Grid. Answering question #1: Centralized vs Distributed power

First of all I would like to thank everyone for responding to my Electric Grid Questions and throwing light into this subject which I find fascinating. Here is the compiled version of the answers I received for the first of the three questions plus some research of my own (the other two questions I hope to address in the upcoming weeks):

1- What is the best strategy for the future of power? Is it to generate electricity in each home, or neighborhood, or community; or to maintain the current system where a series of big power plants inject their product into a complex network that distributes the electricity to large geographic areas?

To help me answer this question I turned to Amory B. Lovins' newest article "Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?" (it turns out we both wrote about this particular subject at the same time, therefore proving that great minds think alike!)
Amory is 100% for distributed power: “Central thermal stations have become like Victorian steam locomotives: magnificent technological achievements that served us well until something better came along.”

Some interesting facts mentioned in Amory's article: "The U.S. lags with only about 6 percent micropower: its special rules favor incumbents and gigantism. Yet micropower provides from one-sixth to more than half of all electricity in a dozen other industrial countries. Micropower in 2006 (the last full data available) delivered a sixth of the world’s total electricity (more than nuclear power) and a third of the world’s new electricity. Micropower plus “negawatts” — electricity saved by more efficient or timely use — now provide upwards of half the world’s new electrical services. The supposedly indispensable central thermal plants provide only the minority, because they cost too much and bear too much financial risk to win much private investment, whereas distributed renewables got $91 billion of new private capital in 2007 alone"

Even though I would also prefer to see a distributed power system I am not as optimistic as Mr Lovins (and neither were some of the people who responded). There are some important efficiency and market issues with distributed energy generation that we have to face right now. Take wind power for example: the newer generation of wind farms has more and bigger turbines than their predecessors. I credit this to several factors:

• Turbines become more efficient as they grow in size - bigger turbines (this is true up to certain limits)
• Wind farms benefit from economies of scale as they become larger (more turbines)
• As wind farm owners become more comfortable with the investment, higher capacity plants are being proposed and funded.
• Most important of all: Selling and installing ONE wind farm that produces a Mega Watt per hour is easier (and more commercially viable) than selling thousands of smaller kilo watt turbines. This point in particular affects the whole chain of development of power plants:
• 1. Developers of new technologies aim towards bigger pockets (centralized plants). Therefore, creating newer and more efficient generators for the centralized system and neglecting the distributed option.
• 2. Investors, distributors and installers aim to reduce their risk by concentrating their investment and effort into more focused and less mass market trend-changing technologies. When we talk about creating a new wind power plant, we understand the limits and the risks better than if we would talk about selling wind turbines door to door.

The same efficiency and market issues hold true for other renewable energy generation methods (with perhaps the exception of solar PV, being the one with the most distributed systems to date). Furthermore we are leaving hydro and nuclear out of the equation. Forget the impossibility of having distributed hydro power and the danger of having distributed nuclear power!

Finally, I am including some answers I received via email or LinkedIn (I am reserving the names of the authors awaiting for their approval):

· "we need to break away from centralized power...and as it happens - while that's not a common opinion with the big power companies - it is the common opinion of electrical generation engineers"

· "technology and wisdom will dictate the answers...Now that science is finally focusing on the problem of sustainability and innovation, breakthroughs will be coming within a few years based on existing "future-tech" inventions and unimagined ones"

· "With the move to wind and solar power it will be necessary to maintain a large grid system because of the instability of the energy production"

· “I think the "smart grid" has the potential in the 2010s to duplicate the same type of transformation of our everyday lives as did the Internet in the 1990s… New technologies are making small generating facilities (solar, wind, biomass, even natural gas) sufficiently economic that they can compete with the large central station generators… The smart grid can help here also. It will be able to control the micro generating device you install at your house. When you are away or not otherwise using your full capacity for your own house, the smart grid will pump your electricity into the grid for others to use. This lets your system operate on a useful basis closer to 100% of the time with the resulting efficiency gain”

· “the best strategy isn't a single approach. By combining efficiency at the demand end of the grid (homes, business, etc) and allow the demand to sell the ability to reduce further during peak periods we can avoid building some amount of new generation. This alone isn't enough. Technology on the supply side with newer more efficient means of generation also play a role”

· “Imagine rental properties or tightly packed suburban neighborhoods. These folks would find it difficult if not impossible to erect a wind turbine or solar panel. Also, many consumers would not be able to generate enough alternate source power individually to run their homes and most businesses would not either”

· “Think how consumption is accomplished - locally in homes and local businesses, and there are some large energy intensive industries that require huge amounts of energy, like metal foundries and smelting, and they need the massive generation power of wind farms and solar farms and hydro dams (for overnight storage, and base load power)”

· “Part of the problem with local generation is that no one wants to live next to a power plant”

· “Electricity tends to be a natural monopoly. Established industrial groups especially the utilities owning and operating generating stations on fossil fuels and large dumb grids and super highways supplying energy at low tariffs were hitherto getting away with murder by not paying for externalities (carbon footprint increase).”

· “for most sources local generation is impractical, and you still need a grid to even out supply and demand even for solar”

· “The moving of energy from point A to B, and often back again, is a huge drain on efficiency. Keeping it all close by to where it was generated and will be used would be great. However are there good options for the consumer and/or the business that want to store the power? I've read about some custom hydrogen fuel cell methods. There is always batteries I guess”

Until next week…SHALOM!

The Electric Grid. Questions?

I come here before you to seek for answers!

Now that the words “Smart Grid” is in our everyday lives. I would like to better understand how the current “Dumb Grid” works. In this world full of information I have not been able to find satisfactory answers to the following questions regarding the Electricity Grid. Excuse my ignorance!

1- What is the best strategy for the future of power? Is it to generate electricity in each home, or neighborhood, or community; or to maintain the current system where a series of big power plants inject their product into a complex network that distributes the electricity to large geographic areas?

2- What determines the capacity needs of the power plant? Is it the installed capacity in the network (each appliance and circuit in each house, office and factory) or is it the historic average consumption of electricity?

3- Why can’t we have a direct current (DC) grid? Many alternative energy technologies struggle with the conversion from DC to AC (alternative current). Why do we need to use AC everywhere?

What I have learned recently is that the existing network of power plants works under a demand / cost of production basis. The power plant that is cheapest to run is producing 24/7 (Base Load Power Plant); as the demand grows during the day (or the week) additional plants start generating to produce the needed electricity. Therefore creating a different (cost and) price for electricity at different times of the day (or the week).

Will this complex network be needed if (and when) we obtain electricity from the sun or the wind (or any other renewable source)?

The real core of the matter is whereas new alternative energy technologies will flourish in the home or neighborhood scale, or will they replace existing power plants in the power grid? In other words, who will be the pioneer of renewable energy? Will it be the average Joe or the big utility companies?

Regarding the capacity of the power plants:

This question seems simple, but I have found is not as straightforward as it seems.

According to me, there are two "measurements" of electricity in your home, commerce, office or factory: the installed capacity and the actual electricity being consumed.

When you build a house and install the main electricity "box" you have to do so according to a calculation of the power needs for that house. This calculation is based on the number of outlets, appliances, lights and other power consuming devices the house has built into it (or may be able to support). The breaker box in the house reflects the need of each room or appliance for the power capacity (voltage).

The question is: does the power plant need to generate according to the installed capacity of the aforementioned house, or can the power plant generate based on the actual use of electricity in the house? In other words, if we reduce the installed capacity of all the houses in a city, but these houses consume the same amount of electricity as before; will we save any power?

Finally, I am puzzled by the lack of DC alternatives in today’s wind, and solar power generation world. I am aware of the “War of Currents” between AC and DC (won by AC). But I wonder what would happen if today’s technological advances were applied to a DC network with alternative energy as a power source and DC applications everywhere.

I want to apologize for the time gap between my previous posting and this one. It turns out that having a third child, traveling and keeping up with three different types of businesses in three different countries does take time!

Until next week: SHALOM!

Is your car plugged? or do you have a dinosaur?

The Toyota Prius is, without a doubt, the current standard for the future of the automobile industry.

The following video is from one of my favorite TV shows "Top Gear". In the clip from this BBC show they demonstrate the disadvantages of the Toyota Prius . The video only takes 2min and 40sec, and in that time they completely debunk the Prius from its high throne. (the only disadvantage they fail to mention is one that claims that hybrids are too quiet!)

Say what you will, the Prius is the starting point. The important question is "where do we go from here?"

If the Prius is the starting point, then let's see what the future Prius will look like:

On January 2008 Toyota announced that the 2010 Prius will be a Plug-in Hybrid version of the current model (this makes a lot of sense!). Suddenly a year goes by and in January 2009 Toyota previews the 2010 Prius. SURPRISE! This Prius is NOT a plug-in hybrid, its a regular Prius with a bit more room and 4 more MPG of efficiency. Wait, there is more! On the same January 2010 Toyota announces the introduction of a plug-in vehicle by late 2009 (go figure!)

Well, it seems Toyota is unsure if it wants to let others take the lead. Let's see who will launch electric or hybrid cars on 2009 and 2010.

- Ford (clumsy and late as always) is announcing a new Fusion Hybrid. This vehicle will be less efficient than the Prius, but it will be roomier (it will do 3 more MPG than the Camry)

- Honda is going in the opposite direction. It will launch the Insight Hybrid. This vehicle will be LESS efficient than the Prius (7 MPG as compared to the 2010 Prius - 3 MPG compared to the current one), but it will cost about $4,000 LESS than the Prius too!

- Chevrolet's Volt is not expected until late 2010. Given Detroit's history on new design and reliability, and with a price tag of $40k I doubt it will create any wave in the market.

- BMW through its Mini brand will launch a fully electric car. This will happen in the upcoming months, but it will only entail 500 customers in California (at $800 lease price per month)

- Something similar is happening with Mercedes and it's Smart brand

- Nissan-Renault is entering the race with an entirely electric car by 2010

- There are rumors of a totally electric car from Ford (project M). This car will appear in the market in 2011

- There are many smaller competitors with cars already in the market or ready to launch: Tesla, Aptera, ZAP, ZENN, Th!nk, and Fisker

If we look further than 2010 we start seeing plans to introduce Hydrogen cars from Toyota and Honda.

At the end of the day, the consumer will have the last word. As explained by Andrew Revkin "consumers are the biggest threat to the rise of electric vehicles"

If you want to enjoy a bit more from "Top Gear" here is the link to the full review of the Prius. Otherwise, until next week: SHALOM!

My perspective on Obama's Green Economy

Well, here we are in 2009! Will this be the year the "Green economy" gets a jump start?

The US is in bad financial shape. Globalized as we are nowadays, everybody is affected. Let’s follow the money to see what the options in this economy are. Keep in mind I am NOT an economist, this is just my personal view of things.

Who has cash?

Cash is the king of economic downturns, whoever holds cash is able to buy assets at a discounted price and will benefit from the eventual up-turn of the economy (if we ever get there!).

China is loaded with cash; it has accumulated cash by becoming the manufacturing center of the world and maintaining their consumption per capita at low levels.

The Oil producing countries have cash. They have been benefited by the absurd surge in oil prices.

Lets assume for one moment that Obama takes on the task of building the "Green Economy" he has promised head-on (I believe he will, because this is his answer to the economic downturn). Obama (or the US) will need MONEY (Obama: "Strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years in green initiatives") to get this "Green Economy" up and running. So, who will fund this endeavor?

There are two options:

A- Get funds directly from the Chinese or the Saudis into "Green Economy" initiatives (very unlikely). The US will not allow these countries to become the direct engine of the new economy. Therefore we are left with only one option:

B- Print more US dollars and sell the T-bills to the Chinese and the Saudis.

Clarification 1: If a country prints more money it either has to create more wealth or find buyers to support the "fresh" money, otherwise it would trigger an hyper-inflation

Clarification 2: I use T-bills as a general term, there may be other financial instruments used by the government to raise money, I am not sure

Now that we have some idea of where the money will come from, let's take some time and run a simulation of how will the "Green Economy" will be developed.

As an example we will use Obama's initiative of pushing for 10% renewable energy by 1012. Let's say that wind farms will help US energy get to that 10% (most probably they will).

Company XYZWind is going to build a 200 Mega Watt wind farm. They are going to purchase land (good for the US). Then, they will have to buy wind turbines. If they buy from a US supplier is beneficial to the US, if they buy foreign technology is not so good. Either way, the components will be most likely manufactured (where else?) in China!

Company XYZWind will require $350 Million to develop this project. Where will the money come from (again, same question)? Here are some options:

1- From government funds: either by way of subsidy or by way of loan. As we mentioned before, the "fresh" money from the US government will have to come from whoever holds cash to buy T-Bills (China and the Saudis)

2- From private funds: most US investors as well as big corporations got hurt in the recent economic downturn, it will be interesting to see if they have the guts to undertake this type of ventures.

Finally, the wind is blowing and the turbines start rotating. Electricity is sent to the grid. But as we all know, the cost of generating a Kilo Watt with wind turbines is more expensive than the price we currently pay per Kilo Watt from the utility (or in the best case is too close to generate enough profit). The government has to provide an incentive. Where is the money from the incentive coming from? You guessed right! China and the Saudis through Treasury Notes!

CONCLUSION: We can have a new Green Economy that will help improve the current financial crisis. If the US (and the rest of the countries that wish to jump into this strategy) follow the Green Economy development plan there will be a big debt to pay. But if these countries play the cards correctly, eventually the debt will be paid and the benefits will remain at home. Otherwise, we will be in the hands of the Chinese and the Saudis.

What do you think?

I would like to send a special SHALOM to my friend in Israel who are going through rough times. In war there are no winners, I hope this conflict gets resolved as soon as possible with the least amounts of deaths (from either side!).